Staying in our Lanes

If we all stay in our lanes and do our jobs things will function effectively and efficiently.  If not, we are no better than a third-world dictatorship.....

Yesterday evening at the end of our regular BCC meeting (beginning at about 1:16:45 of this video) the board once again wrestled with an issue that should have never, ever been brought forward on another agenda.  It is a settled matter, all but the final payment of $6,900.00.  Or so it should have been.

Sadly, however, the issue had to be brought back for another go-round last night.

Way back on October 6th--- nearly four months ago---the board voted to pay the last of the costs associated with righting a wrong that was put upon a former employee.  Whether or not anyone agreed with the board's course of action on that matter, the bottom line is the county had to settle with that former employee because of numerous mistakes made by now former staff members that didn't do their jobs correctly, period.  His rights were violated, unfounded accusations were leveled against him, and his due process rights were tossed in a garbage can and lit on fire.   The insurance company and their attorneys wisely advised that the issue be settled for $200,000.00 as the case, if brought to a trial, could have cost the county as much as $800,000.00 in settlement fees + legal costs.

Feckless, glib individuals (to include a claims adjuster for the insurance company and even several former county staffers) who do not understand the way things actually work (apparently including several of the lawyers who purportedly worked on our behalf for the insurance company in defending the eventual lawsuit that was brought by this former employee) attempted to foist blame on me for the outcome.  Of course what they did and how they spread that message via their adjuster and even through former county staff was unethical and contrary to the professional, appropriate way a client is to be treated by their attorney (they are lucky no bar complaint was filed).  

But we were not their real client; never were.  Nope.  We figured that out once we received their emails and assessment of the case documents---after the fact.  You know, the texts and emails they never thought we would see.  No, their real client was always their insurance company that paid their salaries.  They didn't think too much of the commissioners nor did they care for me.  So what.  Do a job.  That's what I say.  Because the seminal, most important axiom of reality these "lawyers" never admitted to nor conceded was the fact that had this matter gone to trial-- I would have NEVER been called to testify at such a trial as I was not a fact witness to the events upon which I have opined and testified truthfully under oath during my deposition.  

They should have known that, and probably did.  

Yet they still assigned blame to a commissioner when the fact of the matter was I told the truth and they were dealt a bum case with fact patterns they didn't have the chops nor the will to overcome.  Period.

Setting that ALL aside, they brazenly claimed that my truthful testimony once I was deposed somehow "tanked the case"  Garbage, rubbish lie.

So after all that smoke cleared, the final settlement costs this former employee incurred in order to get on with his life and career totalled $6,900.00 dollars.  The board of county commissioners voted 3-1 that the payment of this sum be made to settle the costs with the state on behalf of this former employee. Further, the board also voted that in it's view this payment was appropriate and served a public purpose/interest.  

October 6th we voted that.   (See the discussion and vote beginning at 3:17:41 of this video)

But the clerk never paid it.  

Only when she was asked about the delay, 90 days later,  did her office gave a weak set of excuses about why it wasn't paid.

The clerk didn't bother to tell our attorney or any of us she had a problem with the payment for 90 days until she was prodded on it.

Why not?

Well, many of us suspect it is all related to other pending issues she has with the BCC.  Nobody knows for sure except her, but it doesn't matter now, because last night the board once again had to reopen this messy affair and discuss it.  And again, the board made a 3-1 vote.

This time, though, the 3-1 was made to allow our attorney to utilize the court to compel payment of this item.  I predict a writ of mandamus will be filed, and hopefully it will be considered swiftly in the circuit court so the previously BCC approved, lawful and appropriate payment------at long last----- can be made.

As I said in the meeting last night---I believe to not make that payment is an attempt at usurping the board's power.  It isn't right.  We all have to stay in our lanes and if we don't--things devolve and fall apart and we become dysfunctional like a third-world banana republic or worse.

More to come on this.  Much more.

The Deposition(s) of Jeff Bergosh

 

On Monday, January 18, 2021--I sat for a 6-hour deposition in the Matt Selover case.

I was subpoenaed to testify, I received a written opinion that although my truthful testimony would be damaging to the county's position that it was proper for me to sit for the deposition,  and I was under oath and asked questions by multiple lawyers about this matter.  

And I told the truth.  

Here's what's important to know:  None of what I said had any bearing on the outcome of the case, and every lawyer with a brain knows I would have NEVER been called to testify in this case had it even gone to trial.  I had no relevance whatsoever;  I was not a fact witness, I wasn't an expert witness, I simply had opinions based upon my knowledge of events received second hand.  I never would have been called to testify in this case.   Wouldn't have happened.

But I was subpoenaed, so I complied and testified.  

And yes, my truthful view of the events surrounding the Matt Selover case and subsequent lawsuit differed greatly from the insurance company's lawyer, Katie Guiditis of the Lydecker-Diaz law firm.

And although I did not know it at the time, within 10 days of my deposition, attorney Katie Guiditis of the Lydecker-Diaz law firm (purportedly the attorney for the County Commission paid for by an insurance carrier that picked up this case)  would produce a scathing account of my truthful testimony and share it with the county attorney's office.  It was never shared with me or my counterparts for 8 months  prior to the conclusion of the matter after the county settled with Matt Selover for nearly $200,000.00.  

Even after the conclusion of the matter I was not aware of the existence of this memo, until a PNJ reporter called me, read portions of it to me, and asked me "what I thought of it."  

I find it incredible, astonishing that Ms. Guiditis would withhold the fact that although my opinions differed from hers, my relevance (lack thereof) would preclude my testifying in any trial that might ensue.  This was a huge fact to omit, leaving the casual reader of the document to believe I was the lynchpin that caused this case to settle--which is absolute rubbish and completely dishonest.  

So I have now subsequently requested every document in the case referring to me by Katie Guiditis and her firm. I made this request of Charlie Peppler, deputy County Attorney.  

I received a few email strings, this "memo" from the 27th of January-----and a follow-on memo from May 4th.  Again--I was not aware of any of this, nor were my counterparts, until after the settlement of this lawsuit.  I am disgusted with the way this was portrayed by this lawyer and her apparent desire to set me up as some sort of "boogey man" that created this problem.  I am contemplating filing a bar complaint against her, that is how dissatisfied I am with the way that was handled.  (Seeing the memo

Final Legal Analysis Listed Potential Selover Award Damages at More Than $800K

The County saved potentially $600K or more (according to attorneys working the case on behalf of the County's insurance carrier) due to our settlement with wronged first responder Matt Selover.  PNJ did not report that; instead, their article on the front page of this morning's paper essentially blames everything about this case on Jeff Bergosh......

Unlike the dishonest, feckless partisan fake news PNJ, their writer Jim Little and their rancid trash heap article in print on the front page of today's paper---I will link the documentation I have that illustrates the totality of the problems with the County's defense of the Paramedic Matt Selover's Lawsuit the county settled for just under $200K last month.

Fake news PNJ cherry pick a 35 page document from January of this year to find a couple of paragraphs they believe to be unflattering to yours truly, and they make a story of that only and exclusively.  

And, they conveniently do not link their source docuement--a 35 page memo from the Lydecker-Diaz law firm delineating all the multiple problems with the defense and urging a settlement in the case to reduce financial exposure to their real client---not the BCC---the insurance company that ultimately paid the settlement.

PNJ didn't show the document, but I did.  

And PNJ's subsequent post on their facebook page was panned by readers unanimously and universally---including by Matt Selover himself, you know, the first responder at the center of the matter.  He went in and made some very apropos comments correcting the PNJ's flawed narrative on their own facebook page.

But setting that wreckage aside--there was a follow-on memo from the same firm sent over to the BCC's deputy county attorney Charlie Peppler in early May---and that memo apparently didn't get leaked to the PNJ as the previous one did.  I wonder why?  (I know why, and so will those who read it!)

Actually--none of the board members knew about it so far as I can tell--which is problematic as we should have been given it ahead of our last shade meeting in early June.  It might have influenced decisionmaking.  But it was withheld from the board, we did what we did, and it is all over now.

But that memo, linked here, did describe our potential liablility as potentially exceeding $800K--and again urged a settlement for a myriad of good reasons---the same ones and more from their first memo---yet none of these valid reasons made it into the fake news PNJ article.  Nope.  Just "Jeff Bergosh's fault"  (I wonder why?).  No, I don't wonder why, I know why. PNJ are biased, weak, lazy, owned by the powerful, and fake to their rotten core.  That's why.

From the memo the PNJ didn't show you:

"individuals at the County thought restricting his [Selover's] privileges may be discipline and trigger due process. This prompted John Dosh (Dosh), former Interim Public Safety Director, and Matthew Coughlin, former Interim County Administrator) to seek a legal opinion regarding Dr. Edler’s authority to demote Selover. As such, Deputy County Attorney Charles Peppler, drafted same and concluded that Dr. Edler lacked the authority to demote Selover.  Critically, this is a weakness in our case as our defense is that the actions taken by the County do not amount to a disciplinary action." 

"Should a jury find that the County is liable, but believe Plaintiff’s expert’s economic loss findings, we estimate Plaintiff’s recoverable damages in a range between $788,162.00-$820,162, not taking into account attorney fees."  

"Overall, we have concerns regarding the atmosphere at the County at the time of Selover’s complaint, the turnover occurring with the administration and having things fall through the cracks, the differences in opinions evidenced in emails, and the County failing to follow their harassment policy.  For example, the County failed to follow their harassment policy timeline, but did not let Selover appeal again despite the County taking six months to issue their opinion on Selover’s complaint. Moreover, at the time Selover’s privileges were restricted, there was a disagreement over whether restricting Plaintiff’s clinical privileges or any paramedic’s clinical privileges was considered “discipline” thereby triggering due process. We have two county attorney’s opinions stating that it was discipline."

 "Critically, she [former HR Director Jana Still] testified that after rendering the final opinion, Selover asked to appeal, but since the complaint was a harassment complaint, and subject to the unlawful harassment policy only, it only provided for 5 days to appeal—which Selover and Dr. Edler had at the

Fascinating View Inside Insurance Company Lawyer's Legal Strategy for their "Client" in the Selover Suit

Ever wonder how an insurance company's lawyer, attempting to minimize her client's exposure, would advise a County that was exercising said insurance company's policy?  Read this post and attached document and you will know.  And it's fascinating. 

Although it appears this document (memo) from the County's Insurance Comapany's Law Firm was sent to our County Attorney's office on January 27th---I just got a copy of it late yesterday afternoon.  It is a detailed, behind the scenes legal analysis of the case against the county brought by Matt Selover for multiple egregious violations of his due process rights and the shameful way he was treated. This is the kind of document the public rarely gets to see, however because we are a public entity subject to the open records laws and because the litigation in this case is concluded---it now becomes a public record and open for release.  Heck, I never even knew this document existed I only was made aware of it by a source unaffiliated with the county who actually called me and asked me "What I thought about the memo?"

Well, I didn't, because I hadn't, because I'd not seen it.  

But apparently others had seen it -------and this was probably the genesis of some late night calls between our former HR director and a bean-counter insurance bureaucrat last month.... oh well.

So, now being aware of its existence--I called the county attorney late yesterday afternoon and got it in 5 minutes flat.  And I spent hours last night reading it.  

But why was this memo never shared with myself and my counterparts at our June shade session, though?  Why were some staffers and apparently at least one other commissioner provided this document---but not the rest of us?  Who leaked this memo unlawfully to outside entities before the lawsuit was settled and this document was actually subject to release?

I will get answers to these questions, I have already asked.  I do have idea, though.  And thankfully, that individual is no longer employed with the county.  Let's put it that way.

Meanwhile-this document will make it's way to the written press very soon--- and I am fairly certain portions and snippets will be cut and pasted into an article that will purport to make me the "bad guy" of this case.  "That guy Bergosh supported Selover and would not go along with our defense strategy!!" will be the flavor.

So be it.  

The facts are clear, though: we wronged this first responder, disciplined him inappropriately, denied him due process, retaliated against him after he filed a harrassment complaint against his medical director, bungled that complaint and subsequently damaged him emotionally and physically--all the while stomping all over his rights and abandoning county policy and past practice.  That's why we settled with him, and the insurance company (not Escambia taxpayers) paid him a $200,000.00 settlement. 

Here are some "low"lights from this insurance company lawyer's memo--illustrating just how weak her case was and why:

"Critically, one of our biggest weaknesses is the fact that between April 23, 2019 and May 1, 2019, there is no documentation whatsoever supporting the Board's alleged decision to 1) restrict Selover's clinical privileges and 2) that Dr. Edler decided to report Selover to the-Department of Health."

"After he [Selover] filed the complaint, he testified that he worked without any issue for 22 or 23 days until he was advised his clinical privileges were restricted on May 15, 2019. He testified John Dosh and Leon Salter advised him that Dr. Edler restricted his job duties on May 13, 2019. Notably, as noted above, this is a significant weakness in our case as this occurred over three weeks after the QA/QI meeting."

"Dr. Edler told the [April 23, 2019 QA/QI] board to write up their thoughts and she would decide what to do. He [William Hopkins] recalls her telling him to write up the meeting and their observations, but it seems like they did not decide what actions to take regarding Selover at the meeting. They did not discuss reprimand or about limiting his ability to practice or do certain procedures.   They also did not talk about reporting him to the FDOH." 

"We believe Plaintiff may be able to establish that Plaintiff through high-ranking officials­ ratified the alleged due process violations allegedly committed by Dr. Edler because it did not reverse her actions despite having reason to do so based on Peppler's legal memorandum and Spainhower's report. Accordingly, should this court determine that Selover's due process rights were violated, the County may be subject to municipal liabili ty."

"..there is a chance that the Court will find that his [Selover's] position change from paramedic to EMT-regardless of no pay change-constituted disciplinary action or adverse employment action since be was perceived by his peers to only be an EMT, his ability to work overtime as a paramedic was limited, and his pay was essentially reduced. We have highlighted in depositions that the policies and procedures define "demotion" as having your pay rate decreased-which did not happen to Selover. However, Bergosh's deposition highlights the