Webber v. Mid-Kansas Pediatric Assocs., P.A.
| Decision Date | 17 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15-1285-GEB |
| Parties | DENICE A. WEBBER, Plaintiff, v. MID-KANSAS PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES, P.A., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiff brings this action against her former employer alleging her termination was unlawful, based upon three claims: 1) discrimination on the basis of her age; 2) discrimination on the basis of her disability; and 3) in retaliation for her complaints regarding her treatment. This matter is now before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32). The Court finds jurisdiction proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) with supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. After review of Defendant's motion and memorandum (ECF No. 33), Plaintiff's Response in opposition (ECF No. 39); Defendant's Reply (ECF No. 44), and hearing arguments of counsel at the September 19, 2016 in-person hearing, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion as set forth below.
Plaintiff Denice A. Webber was employed by defendant Mid-Kansas Pediatric Associates, P.A. ("MKPA"), a Kansas professional association conducting business as a pediatric medical clinic in Sedgwick County, Kansas, from October 4, 2007 until her termination on September 16, 2014. MKPA is comprised of three Kansas offices: an east Wichita office, a west Wichita office, and a Derby2 office. MKPA hired Webber in 2007 as a receptionist and, throughout her employment, she was located at MKPA's west office. Michelle McKissick acted as office manager of the west location during Webber's employment. On May, 1, 2008, Webber was promoted to a position in the billing department that the parties describe as "Billing Leader" and/or "Billing Specialist." Amy Gilchrist, MKPA's Practice Administrator, promoted Webber to the billing position, but was primarily located in the east clinic location. Promotion records, signed by Gilchrist, indicate Webber was promoted due to her professionalism, talent, hard work, and judgment. Throughout her employment, MKPA relied upon Webber's proficiency in handling its billing matters; however, Webber's difficulties at maintaining positive work relationships ultimately led to the disintegration of her job.
From her promotion in 2008 until 2012, Webber acted as MKPA's sole billing specialist. In 2012, after MKPA's practice grew and the resulting workload increased, Webber suggested the hiring of an additional billing specialist. Webber proposed then-receptionist Stacy Halls, who was under the age of 40, as a potential candidate. Halls was the only one of the current clinic employees Webber considered suggesting for the position, and MKPA hired Halls to share the billing duties.
According to a job description written by MKPA for the billing position, Webber was required to gather charge information,3 code services, enter information into a database, complete the billing process, and distribute billing information. The position also required her to perform other responsibilities, such as following HIPAA guidelines for maintaining patient confidentiality and other duties as assigned. Contained in the description, and admitted by Webber, is the additional performance requirement that she would establish and maintain effective working relationships with other employees, the medical providers, and the public.
One of the listed duties of a billing specialist was to code diagnoses and procedures from information provided by physicians, and to assist with coding error resolution. If a ticket or lab order bill arrived in the billing department without an assigned diagnosis code, the billing department identified the proper code, according to the procedure or service provided, and would input the correct billing code. During Webber's employment, MKPA used the ICD-9 diagnosis coding manual to determine billing codes, but was preparing to implement the ICD-10 system, which Webber understood would complicate billing by adding thousands of new billing codes. The record is unclear regarding when MKPA originally planned to implement the new billing system, but it appears MKPA planned to do so in approximately early to mid-2014. However, the conversion was delayed.
After Halls' move to billing, Webber shared billing duties with Halls. When helping to prepare an office manual, Webber described her responsibilities in more detail, noting among other duties, she entered charge tickets for the east and Derby offices into the computer system daily, while Halls handled the west office tickets. Both billers handled denied insurance claims, although initially Halls handled more with Webber assisting as time allowed. There was no specific delineation of which biller took on which duties.
In late January 2014, Webber was diagnosed with cancer. She underwent surgery and, due to her surgery, she was not cleared by her physician to return to work until February 24, 2014. After her return, Webber worked on a part-time basis to recover from surgery, undergo chemotherapy, and attend related medical appointments. Her course of chemotherapy continued through June of 2014. Webber was released by her physician back to full-time work on August 4, 2014 and now reports her cancer is in remission.
The parties agree that, due to her cancer diagnosis and treatment, Webber was an individual with a disability, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1), and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, K.S.A. § 44-1002(j), (l). MKPA did not deny Webber any accommodation for her disability.
During Webber's absence from work, Halls took on all billing duties previously shared by the two women. Halls maintained the daily charge work but was unable to keep up with resubmitting denied insurance claims, some of which accumulated during Webber's absence. Webber does not dispute Halls' assumption of all billing duties was a natural consequence of her absence. However, Webber's job duties changed upon her return to work in March 2014.
While Webber worked part-time from approximately March to August 1, 2014, she was able to set her own work hours and come and go as needed. MKPA asked her to first work only on resubmitting the denied claims, and Webber spent all of her time working on those claims for approximately the first month she was back to work. Later, Webber began inputting the Derby office charge tickets, but Halls continued to process the daily tickets from both the east and west offices. Webber admits the work she was given while working part-time was work that, if she needed to leave and the work was left undone, it would not create a significant disruption to MKPA's business. After she returned to work full-time, she continued processing the Derby charge tickets, processing denied insurance claims, preparing insurance reports, and she was assigned the new project of bringing MKPA into compliance with HIPAA.
According to the sworn declarations and deposition testimony of several MKPA employees, working with Webber was extremely stressful. Webber's coworkers contend they had to endure Webber's negative behavior toward them for several years. According to the employees, Webber was disruptive, confrontational, rude, and overly critical of them. Many claimed they had never experienced such a difficult working relationship, and declared the work environment improved when Webber's employment ended. Gilchrist testified some employees considered leaving MKPA because of the environment created by Webber. As an example, Gilchrist described Webber screaming at and intimidating the front desk staff if they mistakenly failed to get proper insurance information from a patient, which would leave the front desk staff in tears. Gilchrist testified Webber was confronted frequently both before and after her illness regarding her approach to other clinic staff, and instructed not to confront coworkers with billing questions but to go to Gilchrist or McKissick first. Webber does not specifically refute the complaints of her former coworkers, but points to her otherwise positive work history and lack of formal reprimands during her 7-year employment.
Gilchrist testified MKPA's physicians had communicated to her their disapproval of the disruption among staff in the west office, stemming from the way Webber treated her coworkers. She declared the physicians discussed terminating Webber's employment in late 2013, but decided to wait—first until after the holidays, but in light of her cancer diagnosis, MKPA did not want her to suffer additional hardship.
Despite MKPA's complaints of Webber's workplace bullying, only in one instance was Webber formally reprimanded regarding her interaction with coworkers. On March 25, 2011Webber admits she was disciplined after bringing to Halls' attention a mistake on a fee ticket, and understood Halls may have felt Webber overstepped her boundaries. Despite the lack of other written warnings, Webber admits McKissick discussed her work relationships with her on other occasions. Webber did not dispute she referred to her co-workers as "idiots" and complained to coworkers about McKissick.
In addition to the complaints from other coworkers, Webber's relationship with McKissick was particularly strained. Webber testified that, on one occasion after returning to work, McKissick accused her of having "chemobrain." McKissick denies using the word, and testified Webber actually mentioned it. Regardless of who said "chemobrain," Webber states McKissick mentioned it once and neither brought the issue up again. According to Webber, McKissick's use of the word "chemobrain" was insulting and insinuated that she was not remembering things during her illness. However, Webber acknowledged the chemotherapy caused her to become fatigued and...
To continue reading
Request your trial