12/12/2019 inewsource Mail - FW: Whistleblower retaliation complaint Jill Castellano FW: Whistleblower retaliation complaint 2 messages Kevin Murphy To: Brad Racino , Jill Castellano Cc: Diana Shapiro Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:19 PM See below…k Kevin T. Murphy, MD kevin@prtms.com 619-804-3359 Chief of Staff Diana Shapiro 858-774-8440 diana@prtms.com www.PrTMS.com From: Kevin Murphy Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 1:53 PM To: Jim Flynn Subject: FW: Whistleblower retaliation complaint Jim. It looks like I never sent this to you….k Kevin T. Murphy, MD kevin@prtms.com 619-804-3359 Chief of Staff Diana Shapiro 858-774-8440 diana@prtms.com www.PrTMS.com https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=d8ce919e02&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1652206757814843481&simpl=msg-f%3A1652206757814843481&… 1/3 12/12/2019 inewsource Mail - FW: Whistleblower retaliation complaint From: Locally Designated Official for UCSD Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 12:18 PM To: "Murphy, Kevin" Cc: Locally Designated Official for UCSD Subject: Whistleblower retaliation complaint Dear Dr. Murphy, I am writing to you regarding the Whistleblower retaliation complaint you submitted earlier this year. It has been referred to our office for review. The Office of Ethics & Compliance at UCSD is charged with, amongst other things, investigating reports of retaliation, in the form of Adverse Personnel Actions, against UCSD employees for making Protected Disclosures. The UC Whistleblower Protection Policy sets forth specific thresholds that must be met in order for the complaint to be accepted and investigated specifically as a Retaliation claim under this policy. I have reviewed the complaint pursuant to these standards and have some feedback regarding the Adverse Personnel Action allegations, as follows: 1. The first alleged Adverse Personnel Action is that Mr. Weissburg told your Chair (Dr. Mundt) to not sign your software waiver form from Tech Transfer. The addendum to the complaint (your notes from the Dec. 17, 2018 call) suggests that this act occurred prior to your protected disclosure (the Dec. 16, 2018 filing of the complaint online), as you reference a “previous conversation.” If Mr. Weissburg’s order to Dr. Mundt occurred prior to Dec. 16, 2018, this would not constitute an Adverse Personnel Action. If this order took place after Dec. 16, 2018, please revise your sworn complaint to identify the date it occurred, the circumstances surrounding the order, and what impact it has had on your employment, so that this office can further review it. 2. The second alleged Adverse Personnel Action is that Mr. Weissburg told Dr. Mundt not to sign the MSP contract. Similar to the above, it is not clear from the complaint when this order took place (the complaint states “Dec. 2018”). If this order took place after Dec. 16, 2018, please revise your sworn complaint to identify the date it occurred, the circumstances surrounding the order, and what impact it has had on your employment, so that it can be further reviewed. 3. The third alleged Adverse Personnel Action is that Mr. Weissburg told Kim Gillespie to not contact or respond to you (regarding the software waiver?). The addendum indicates that Mr. Weissburg told you about this in a “previous conservation” (that took place prior to Dec. 16, 2018). Therefore, unfortunately, this would not constitute an Adverse Personnel Action. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=d8ce919e02&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1652206757814843481&simpl=msg-f%3A1652206757814843481&… 2/3 12/12/2019 inewsource Mail - FW: Whistleblower retaliation complaint 4. The fourth alleged Adverse Personnel Action is that your first and second quarter clinical bonuses have been withheld (due to the audit). Similar to the above, it is not clear from the complaint when the decision to begin holding the bonuses occurred. If your first quarter bonus was expected in the Spring or Summer of 2018, then the decision would have been made prior to the Dec. 16, 2018 complaint submission, and would not qualify as an Adverse Personnel Action. We recognize that UCSD employees may face unwarranted negative treatment for reporting issues, but the Whistleblower Policy limits our office to opening formal Retaliation investigations to cases that meet the threshold requirements. If you have additional information that you would like to include, we would be happy to review an updated sworn statement to see if it meets the threshold requirements. Best regards, Kathy Katherine C. Kim Deputy Chief Investigations & Administration UC San Diego Office of Ethics & Compliance 9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0059 La Jolla, CA 92093-0059 Office: (858) 822-2045 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and/or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable state and federal law, including, but not limited to, privacy standards imposed pursuant to the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer. Thank you. Brad Racino To: Jill Castellano Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:21 PM [Quoted text hidden] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=d8ce919e02&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1652206757814843481&simpl=msg-f%3A1652206757814843481&… 3/3