By Bob Aller & Brian Mathuma
Posted January 18, 2025
Various studies show 50%–96% of medical errors are not reported by nurses. Studies also show nurses have a deserved fear of retaliation, reputational harm, and job loss. In addition, nurses often doubt that reporting will lead to positive change.
Yet, Maria continued to speak up about problems at the hospital—even after her supervisors told her not to file such reports. But she felt she would be protected. She had seen posters throughout the hospital informing staff not to be afraid to file reports of unsafe working conditions that did not meet legal requirements. The posters promised protection from retaliation. But the posters did not protect Nurse Gatchalian. She was fired in June 2019.
In 2021, two years after she was fired, nurse Gatchalian filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. She was represented by attorneys David deRubertis and Taylor Prainito. Ms. Gatchalian’s complaint showed how she raised concerns about understaffing and unsafe working conditions between 2016 and 2019. (Understaffing included non-compliance with California nurse staffing requirements of 1 nurse for 2 patients.) The lawsuit described over 25 interactions with staff, weaving a narrative of complaints and retaliation.
Though Maria had an exemplary employment record over 30 years, in 2019 she violated a hospital policy. Kaiser used that violation as the foundation for her termination. Kaiser attorneys said that Ms. Gatchalian was fired after they received a photo of her during a break. The photo showed she was sitting in a recliner next to an isolette (an enclosed incubator holding a newborn). The photograph showed her using her personal phone with her bare feet resting on the isolette with a baby inside. Placing her bare feet on the isolette violated infection control policies, they said.
The standards for cleanliness in neonatal units are understandably high.
Nevertheless, plaintiff attorney deRubertis argued that though the violation was serious, Kaiser’s reason for firing did not comply with the Kaiser standard for first-time policy infractions. The plaintiff attorney presented cases involving other Kaiser employees who had violated equally serious NICU policies for the first time. They were not fired. They were written up and counseled.
In 2017, Gatchalian learned a patient’s father had a knife when he visited the hospital’s NICU. Ms. Gatchalian’s supervisor, Stella Riddell, RN, was aware of the situation. But she didn’t alert staff. Gatchalian brought this to the attention of the NICU director and the hospital’s union president. Following her report, she claimed her supervisor began to “routinely harass, micromanage, retaliate, and intimidate” her, the complaint says. It started when Riddell told Gatchalian to let other nurses prepare the NICU schedule that Gatchalian had been doing for about five years.
In another incident, the Director of Maternal Child Health, Jennifer Astasio, told Ms. Gatchalian that the Chief Nursing Executive, Valerie McPherson, said she should not make more unusual occurrence reports.
At trial, Gatchalian’s attorney contended that Nurse Gatchalian was fired because she continued to file “unusual occurrence reports.” She filed these reports even after she learned that the hospital’s chief nurse executive wanted her to stop. deRubertis told the jurors “Her reports opened up a can of worms. If they dealt with her reports the right way, they had to look under the hood. But the thing is, they don’t want to look under the hood because they knew what was under the hood … They were cutting costs, and that was the problem.”
“Your voice, your verdict—it might be able to change Kaiser. It might be able to tell this healthcare corporation and insurance company that the quality of care and the protection of those with the courage to speak out on the quality of care matter more than the business side of what medicine and health insurance have become today.”
After an 11-day trial, the jury reached a verdict in a few hours. Kaiser had apparently grossly underestimated how a jury would react to the facts. Gatchalian was awarded $2.5 million for past and future lost earnings. She was awarded $9 million for past and future emotional distress. But the jury also believed that Kaiser acted with malice, allowing punitive damages. The verdict included $30 million in punitive damages.
Kaiser Permanente appealed the jury’s decision. Murtaza Sanwari, the senior vice president at Kaiser Permanente in Woodland Hills, said in a statement: “Her actions were egregious and in violation of our infection control policies and standards. We stand by her termination and are surprised and disappointed in the verdict,” Sanwari said.
Kaiser sought a new trial, claiming that Gatchalian’s attorneys improperly presented the case of the tragic delivery. Kaiser claimed that the case was “highly prejudicial and improperly influenced the jury’s decision, swaying them through bias and emotion.” In a hearing after the trial, Kaiser attorney Julian Poon argued that the jury’s hearing about a mother begging for a caesarean section and the physician refusing to do a caesarean (with the newborn suffering brain damage) had nothing to do with understaffing and retaliation.
But Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter disagreed. “This evidence was relevant to the plaintiff’s claim that she was terminated in part in anticipation of her disclosing these issues. It also was necessary to establish a factual understanding of the environment and practices that surrounded the decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment.”
In December, 2024, the parties settled the case. However, the final settlement amount is not available in the public record.
