Appendix in Support filed by Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center re 18 Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion (Bennett, Yvonne)¶
Corbett v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, No. 5:21-cv-00281-H (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 19 · 2022-11-08 · PDF
Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 1 of 100
PageID 189
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
SHANNON CORBETT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No.: 5:21-cv-00281-H
DEFENDANT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER’S BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
________________________________________
APPENDIX – Table of Contents
________________________________________
APPENDIX 1
Declaration of Cooper Phillips, M.D. with Exhibit A
APPENDIX 2
Declaration of J. Edward Bates with Exhibits A-D
APPENDIX 3
Declaration of Alan Santos, M.D. with Exhibits A-F
APPENDIX 4
Declaration of Dawn Payne with Exhibit A
APPENDIX 5
11/01/18 letter from Dr. Deryk Walsh
APPENDIX 6
Deposition of Alan Santos, M.D. (selected pages)
APPENDIX 7
3/31/2020 EEOC Charge of Discrimination of Plaintiff
APPENDIX 8
Deposition of Plaintiff (selected pages)
1
Civil Action No.: 5:21-cv-00281-H
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 22 of 100
PageID 190
190
APPENDIX 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
SHANNON CORBETT,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
vs.
§
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
§
HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER,
§
Defendant.
§
DECLARATION OF COOPER PHILLIPS , M.D.
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK §
I, Cooper Phillips, M.D., declare the following:
1. My name is Cooper Phillips and I am of sound mind, over the age of eighteen years, have never
been convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, am capable of making this
Declaration, having personal knowledge of the matters contained in this Declaration and they
are true and correct.
2. I currently serve as the Program Director for the Anesthesiology Residency Program at the
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC). I have served in this role since
June of 2021.
3. As Program Director, my responsibilities include, but are not limited to, designing, and
conducting the Anesthesiology Residency Program in a fashion consistent with the needs of
the community, the mission of TTUHSC, and the mission of the program; I have authority and
accountability for the operation of the program and responsibilities that encompass every
aspect of postgraduate medical training, including assessing and documenting the competency
of each resident and ensuring patient safety.
4. The Anesthesiology Residency Program (ARP) includes broad-based clinical training during
the first year where residents develop basic anesthesia skills followed by three clinical
anesthesia ("CA") or post graduate years ("PGY") during which residents receive training
focused on the clinical application of anesthesiology and its various subspecialty rotations.
5. Throughout the education program, residents must meet certain performance requirements and
clinical competency standards as set forth in the curriculum and pursuant to accreditation
standards under the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education ("ACGME").
2
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 33 of
of 100
PageID191
191
More specifically, residents must develop and master competencies in the six key areas of
patient care; medical knowledge, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal and
communication skills, professionalism, and systems-based practice. Additionally, residents
must pass medical licensure exams including all three steps of the United States Medical
Licensing Exam (·USMLE·) and the American Board of Anesthesiology (·ABA·) Basic
Exam within certain deadlines and prior to advancing to the next post graduate year (·PGY·)
of the program.
6. The Office of Graduate Medical Education (·GME·) is responsible for overseeing the various
residency and fellowship programs at TTUHSC by providing guidance for and supervision of
the residents during their program and ensuring that they meet program requirements.
7. Before becoming the ARP Director, I served as the Anesthesiology Residency Associate
Program Director from July of 2019 to June of 2021 and my responsibilities included assisting
the ARP Director in assessing and documenting the competency of each resident and ensuring
patient safety.
8. Dr. Corbett had at least three different mentors during her residency at TTUHSC to assist her
in preparing for the ABA Basic Exam. Dr. Northcutt, Dr. Tyler, and myself.
9. After Dr. Corbett failed the ABA Basic Exam the third time, I volunteered to be her mentor to
help her study. I asked her to create a study plan that we could revise as needed. I had to make
multiple calls and send multiple text messages to Dr. Corbett to get her to provide even a
minimal plan. I asked Dr. Corbett to meet me twice a month to go over her progress, but that
never happened because she said she was more comfortable just talking to me. I would text or
call her twice a month or she would randomly stop by the Intensive Care Unit when I was
working there. I offered to help her on specific subjects or to have study sessions with her,
however, she did not take me up on my offers.
10. I told Dr. Corbett to make flash cards for the subjects she got wrong from the previous exams
as well as the on-line question banks. I also suggested that Dr. Corbett use the ABA Basic
exam list of subjects as her syllabus to guide her reading.
11. Dr. Corbett also had access to Truelearn question bank which is considered the gold-standard
for anesthesia test preparation. Dr. Corbett stopped accessing this study material over 2 months
before she took the November 2019 exam.
12. After Dr. Corbett failed the ABA Basic exam the third time, we talked at length about whether
it would be best for her to continue in the TTUHSC anesthesia residency, attempt to transfer
to another anesthesia residency, or look for another specialty, I wrote her a letter of
recommendation to search for another program or specialty. When I tried to discuss with her
the possibility of going to another residency, she told me that she investigated it but never truly
pursued it. I also recommended she apply to the ACGME residency match for the 2020
graduation year. I also offered to assist with this process, but she told me she did not want to
apply through the match. I explained that this would provide her with the best chances of
matching into another program or specialty but she still declined to enter the match.
13. I am aware that Dr. Corbett has stated that she was not allowed to study in the Operating Room
(·OR·). However, it was not that she was not allowed to study, it was that she was not paying
attention to the case and her patient, which is her primary responsibility. In my own
experience, Dr. Corbett would not be studying, but shopping, texting or on Facebook while in
the OR. Many faculty reported similar experiences with Dr. Corbett both here at TTUHSC
and while on her pediatric anesthesia rotation at the Children·s Medical Center Dallas,
managed by the University of Texas at Southwestern anesthesiology program.
2
3
3
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 44 of 100
PageID 192
192
14. On or around December 17, 2019, Dr. Corbet submit ed a writ en request to ap eal the recommendation for her dismis al from the residency program in the Department of Anesthesiology.
15. Before the ad hoc subcommit e could convene a hearing on Dr. Corbett's ap eal, Dr. Corbett filed a complaint of gender discrimination with Texas Tech University System Office of Equal Op ortunity.
16.AftertheconclusionofTexasTechUniversitySystemOfficeofEqualOportunity'sinvestigation,whereitwasfoundthatDr.Corbettwasgivennoticeofdismisalfromtheresidencyprogrambasedsolelyonherinabilitytopas therequiredABABasicExam,theadhocsubcom iteeconvenedonApril30,2020toconductahearingtoreviewDr.Corbet'srequestforapeal.
17. In my capacity as the Anesthesiology Residency Associate Program Director I represented the Program in that hearing and presented evidence on its behalf.
18.Afterdeliberations,theadhocsubcommite unanimouslyconcludedthattheAnesthesiologyProgram'sdecisiontodismis Dr.Corbet shouldbeupheld.Atrueandcorectcopyofthesubcom ite 'sReportofFindingsandRecom endationsonShan onCorbet,MD,ap ealproce dingsisatachedatExhibitA.
19. I am aware of Dr. Corbett's assertion that she was dismissed from the ARP because of her gender.
20. I deny any al egation that Dr. Corbet was dismissed from TTUHSC's ARP because of her gender or in retaliation for her complaining about discrimination.
21. TTUHSC's decision to dismiss Dr. Corbet was made in good faith and based solely on her failure to meet the ABA's qualification requirements to continue in the Residency Program.
2 .Dr.Corbet wasdismis edfromtheARPbecauseofherrepeatedfailuretopas theABABasicExamdespitebeinggivenfourop ortunitiestodoso.TheABArequiresaprogramtoprovidetwochancestopas theABABasicexamwithanyfurtherop ortunitiestotaketheexamrequiringtheap rovaloftheARPdirectorwhichDr.Corbet receivedtwice.
23. As of April 30, 2020, the pass rate on the ABA Basic Exam was 91% nationally on the first attempt.
24. No other resident in TTUHSC's ARP has failed the ABA Basic Exam four times.
My name is Co per Philips, M.D., and I am an employe of the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. I am executing this declaration as part of my as igned duties and responsibilities. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and cor ect.
Signed on the 7th day of November, 2022.
Cooper Phillips, M.D.
3
4
EXHIBIT A
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19 Filed 11/08/22
Page 5 of 100
CONFIDENTIAL PEER REVIEW
Page 1 of 5
PageID 193
Memorandum
To:
Surendra Varma, MD
Chair, GMEC
Executive Associate Dean for GME & Resident Affairs
From:
Tammy Camp, MD
Chair, ad hoc appeal subcommittee
Date:
May 4, 2020
Subject:
Report of Findings and Recommendations on Shannon Corbett, MD, appeal proceedings
On April 30, 2020, the ad hoc subcommittee convened to conduct a hearing to review the request for
appeal by Shannon Corbett, MD, on the recommendation for dismissal as a resident from the
Anesthesiology Residency Program due to deficiency in medical knowledge. Dr. Corbett requested this
appeal to review the due process aspects of the anesthesiology residency’s decision to recommend
dismissal. Dr. Corbett chose to have legal counsel present, Carrie A. Harris, Esq. at Matthew Harris
Law PLLC, in an advisory capacity. Alan Santos, MD, Anesthesiology Residency Program Director,
and Cooper Phillips, MD, Anesthesiology Residency Associate Program Director represented the
program. Legal counsel for the institution from the Office of General Counsel was Nathan Christopher,
JD. The hearing occurred through the Zoom conferencing platform due to the in-person meeting
restriction under COVID-19.
The ad hoc subcommittee included the following members:
Tammy Camp, MD, Pediatrics Residency Program Director
Dixon Santana, MD, General Surgery Residency Assistant Program Director
Drew Payne, MD, Internal Medicine Residency Associate Program Director
Matthew Blue, MD, Orthopedics Chief Resident
Grace Wooten, MD, Psychiatry Resident, House Staff Officer
In accordance with the House Staff Policies and Procedures, the subcommittee reviewed documents
submitted, heard presentation of evidence by each party, witness statements, and then deliberated in a
closed session.
After discussion and deliberation, the subcommittee unanimously agreed that the anesthesiology
residency followed, afforded, and even went beyond normally provided due process under the published
program and institutional policies, and the recommendation for dismissal should be upheld.
5
D-000518
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19 Filed 11/08/22
Page 6 of 100
CONFIDENTIAL PEER REVIEW
Page 2 of 5
PageID 194
Summary
Opening Statements
In Dr. Corbett’s opening statements she acknowledged that she failed the American Board of
Anesthesiology (ABA) Basic Examination upon four occasions, but reported her failures were due to the
toxic environment of the anesthesiology residency leading to an inability to learn. In addition, she stated
that she was not provided the needed mentorship, nor adequate study plans with follow through from the
department to enable her to pass this examination.
Dr. Phillips opened by reporting that Dr. Corbett had been given four opportunities to take the ABA
Basic Examination. He reported that the department provided mentorship, unassigned duty time and
numerous resources to Dr. Corbett. He stated he did not know what more could have been done to assist
Dr. Corbett in passing the examination.
Presentations of Evidence
RESIDENT
Dr. Corbett started by asking the committee to review a letter written by a former University Medical
Center (UMC) Operating Room (OR) Circulation nurse who witnessed the operating room environment
and described the interactions of attending faculty, including Dr. Santos, with Dr. Corbett and nursing
staff. This letter cited several examples that led her to the conclusion that “if a resident is failing to
learn, that is not a result of the student’s inability to learn, but rather a failure on the attending physicians
to adequately teach them.”
Dr. Corbett then pointed out several entries in her journal dating back to July of 2017 that she felt
represented the department being “out to get her.” In her journal entries she describes feeling as if she is
constantly being “bashed rather than assisted.” In addition, she showed personal journal entries
reflecting that other attending physicians questioned her as to how she would pass her boards if she did
not have time to study as they frequently saw her in the hospital at night. She further stated that she was
placed on call the night before an In-training Examination, and reportedly was told no one could cover,
but when she visited with cRNAs, they did not remember being asked to cover. Clarification from the
committee revealed that the chief resident makes the call schedule, not faculty.
In her next exhibit, Dr. Corbett showed emails of requests to the Graduate Medical Education (GME)
Office, and specifically to J.E. Bates, regarding assistance for test taking techniques, meetings to discuss
her difficulties in passing USMLE Step 3, as well as discussions regarding the nature of the
anesthesiology residency program. She felt her concerns were not addressed by the GME office.
She presented evidence of an email dated February 28, 2018, from Dr. Christiane Vogt Harenkamp to
Dr. Wasnick regarding a positive performance in the OR on a challenging case, and further detailing the
importance of it being the responsibility of faculty to educate regarding knowledge and skills, with this
taking time, “sometimes more, sometimes less, for any given individual.”
6
D-000519
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19 Filed 11/08/22
Page 7 of 100
CONFIDENTIAL PEER REVIEW
Page 3 of 5
PageID 195
Dr. Corbett provided a letter from the ABA stating that her score from the November 2019 BASIC
Examination did not meet the passing standard, but that she would be eligible to take the examination in
June 2020.
Finally, Dr. Corbett pointed out that evaluations of milestones and other data provided to the ad hoc
committee demonstrated her improvement and gaining competence.
Upon questioning by the committee regarding a negative evaluation from Dallas Children’s regarding
her competence, she stated that while she was there she felt the environment was positive and the
feedback she received was good. She stated she was surprised by the evaluation submitted back to the
program and felt it was due to Dr. Santos collaborating with the program director there to get rid of her.
In questioning, the committee also asked about her study plan. She was unable to clearly articulate her
study plan other than utilizing “The PASS Machine,” a program that was purchased with her resident
funds, and that offers 100% guarantee of BASIC passage. She defined this for study for the 4th attempt.
She reported difficulty balancing time for study with other responsibilities for the previous attempts.
PROGRAM
Dr. Cooper presented evidence on behalf of the program. He reported that the program wanted Dr.
Corbett to succeed, and that the “program went above and beyond to help.” The program assigned three
different mentors over her time in the residency to assist her in preparation for the ABA Basic Exam.
He stated multiple resources were provided to Dr. Corbett, including some which she chose not to
utilize. Dr. Corbett was also referred to the Employee Assistance Program to provide assistance for
possible test anxiety.
Furthermore, he pointed out to the committee that due to the allegations of Dr. Corbett of being treated
differently due to her gender, an investigation by the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) was
conducted. This investigation, following interviews of 25 different current and former residents,
Anesthesiology faculty and OR staff, did not find evidence to support Dr. Corbett’s claim of
discrimination or harassment based on gender. The investigation found that she was actually treated
more favorably than her colleagues by extending her training in the residency program and allowing her
to take the ABA BASIC exam four times.
He reiterated that the primary issue was the lack of clinical knowledge demonstrated by Dr. Corbett in
her repeated failures on the ABA BASIC exam. He stressed that an anesthesiology program is required
to allow a resident two attempts to pass this exam. He reports that the pass rate of this exam is 91%
nationally on first attempt. To his knowledge, only one other resident in the program at TTUHSC has
failed this examination, but they passed on their second attempt.
Regarding rotations at Dallas Children’s, he is unaware of other residents receiving negative evaluations
and felt this reiterated that as a department they were trying to see the best in Dr. Corbett to give her
every possible chance to succeed.
Witnesses:
All participating witnesses were requested by Dr. Corbett.
7
D-000520
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19 Filed 11/08/22
Page 8 of 100
CONFIDENTIAL PEER REVIEW
Page 4 of 5
PageID 196
, B.S.N., R.N., former UMC OR circulation nurse was the first witness to speak on Dr.
Corbett’s behalf. She corroborated her descriptions of the incidents she presented in the letter, and
reinforced that she believed Dr. Corbett to be a competent physician when providing anesthesia to
patients.
A.R.
Christiane Vogt-Harenkamp, MD, PhD, Anesthesiology Attending, was the second witness to speak.
She reported that Dr. Corbett performed well with her in the OR on occasions in which she worked with
her, but that she has not observed Dr. Santos’ relationship with Dr. Corbett or any other residents as she
is “constantly running around and is up and down every few minutes.” She had not heard of any
unprofessional behavior directed toward Dr. Corbett.
Dr. S.Y.
, a fourth year orthopedic resident at Wayne State University was Dr. Corbett’s final
witness. He stressed that Dr. Corbett was well known to him as she had been his study partner in
medical school. He spoke to her character as being diligent and supportive of her colleagues. He has
been in touch with her frequently since graduation and felt he has noticed a difference in her due to the
stress she is under. He reported he would feel very comfortable with her administering anesthesia to a
patient on whom he was operating. When questioned, though, he denied that they have worked together
professionally on any committees, or in any other fashion. He has not seen her since graduation from
medical school.
Closing Statements
Dr. Corbett stated that truth and right matter, and if they do not, we are lost. She restated that she did
not pass the ABA exam due to the toxic environment in which she worked. She felt she proved this with
numerous witnesses, and that it was clear that the anesthesiology department wanted to get rid of her and
that they were utilizing the failure of the ABA examination as the method to do so. She concluded again
with “truth matters, otherwise we are lost.”
Dr. Phillips concluded that the anesthesiology program wanted her to succeed. This was clear in that
despite after her second failure and her signing documents that she would be dismissed upon a third
failure, the department, and principally Dr. Santos, argued to give her an additional 4th chance. Before
this test, she was assigned to non-clinical duties to study from the end of July through the test in
November, as compared to one week non-clinical time afforded to all other residents. He reiterated that
an Office of Equal Opportunity investigation had not substantiated any of the claims of Dr. Corbett. The
ABA BASIC is a national examination that must be passed.
Finally, as Dr. Corbett had made serious allegations toward the GME office, Mr. Bates was asked to
provide clarification of their role in this. He reported that he met with Dr. Corbett as early as February
of 2017. He provided her with the name of Dr. Pelley to assist with test taking strategies. He gave her
his cell phone number so that she could reach out to him in October of 2017. He stated that the detail
provided to this committee and to OEO investigator regarding her complaints were never provided in the
meetings with her. In addition, he stated she provided the committee with incomplete email trails and
misrepresented a lack of responsiveness by the program and institution. He has records detailing five
meetings with Dr. Corbett.
Dr. Camp concluded the recoded portion of the ad hoc subcommittee meeting.
8
D-000521
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19 Filed 11/08/22
Page 9 of 100
CONFIDENTIAL PEER REVIEW
Page 5 of 5
PageID 197
Closed Session Deliberation
The committee’s deliberation coalesced around several themes:
1. Dr. Corbett’s fund of knowledge as evidenced by the ABA BASIC examination was inadequate.
This exam must be passed to graduate from residency. Test scores, even on the 4th attempt, were
significantly below passing (155 – 2nd percentile; compared to passing score of 185). She was
not being dismissed based on her skills in the OR.
2. Her explanation for the poor performance on the exam is primarily based on the “toxic and
hostile environment” in the OR. However, every other anesthesia resident is exposed to the
same environment and has passed the board. Claims made were only substantiated by one
individual and the OEO investigation found no evidence.
3. Dr. Corbett was provided with multiple resources from the program in addition to mentorship to
which she did not completely avail herself of to make the necessary improvements to pass.
The ad hoc appeal committee concluded the deliberation by voting. All members agreed that the
Anesthesiology Program’s decision to dismiss Dr. Corbett should be upheld.
9
D-000522
Case
1919 Filed
Page 10
10 of 100
PageID198
198
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
APPENDIX 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
SHANNON CORBETT, §
Plaintiff,
§
§
vs. § Civil Action No.: 5:21-cv-00281-H
§
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY §
HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, §
Defendant.
§
DECLARATION OF J. EDWARD BATES
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK §
I, J. Edward Bates, declare the following:
1. My name is J. Edward Bates and I am of sound mind, over the age of eighteen years, have
never been convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, am capable of making
this Declaration, have personal knowledge of the matters contained in this Declaration and
they are true and correct.
2. I currently serve as the Assistant Dean for Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center's
(TTUHSC) Graduate Medical Education Department and Designated Institutional Official. I
have served as the Assistant Dean since January of 2021 and as the Designated Institutional
Official since February of 2011.
3. As the Assistant Dean, my duties and responsibilities include the authority and responsibility,
in collaboration with a Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC), for the oversight and
administration of each of the Sponsoring Institution's ACGME-accredited programs, as well
as for ensuring compliance with the ACGME Institutional, Common, specialty-/subspecialty-
specific Program, and Recognition Requirements.
4. I am familiar with the policies and practices of the Graduate Medical Education Department at
TTUHSC.
5. The Office of Graduate Medical Education ("GME") is responsible for overseeing the various
residency and fellowship programs at TTUHSC by providing guidance for and supervision of
the residents during their program and ensuring that they meet program requirements.
6. Dr. Shannon Corbett entered in the four-year residency training program at TTUHSC in the
Department of Anesthesiology on July 1, 2016 until her dismissal from the program in May,
10
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document19
19 Filed
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22
Page 11
11 of
of 100
Page
PageID 199
199
PageID
2020. True and correct copies of her Graduate Medical Education Program Agreements for
academic years 2016-2019 and their amendments are attached as Exhibit A.
7. In my capacity as Assistant Dean I am familiar with the performance requirements and clinical
competency standards as set forth in the curriculum and pursuant to accreditation standards
under the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education ("ACGME").
8. Anesthesiology residents must pass medical licensure exams including all three steps of the
United States Medical Licensing Exam ("USMLE") and the American Board of
Anesthesiology ("ABA") basic Exam within certain deadlines and prior to advancing to the
next post graduate year ("PGY") of the program.
9. During her residency at TTUHSC, Dr. Corbett struggled with meeting the exam requirements.
For example she failed to pass the USMLE step three exam on her first two attempts, but did
receive a passing score on her third attempt. True and correct copies of Dr. Corbett's STEP 3
SCORE REPORTS for March 30, 2017 and May 4, 2018 are attached as Exhibit B.
10. Additionally, Dr. Corbett struggled on the In-training exams. These exams are administered
by the American Board of Anesthesiology to determine a resident's competency in clinical
areas. True and correct copies of Dr. Corbett's In-Training exam score reports are attached as
Exhibit C.
11. One of Dr. Corbett's biggest struggles, and the reason she was dismissed from the
anesthesiology residency program, was the required passage of the ABA Basic Exam. Despite
taking the exam four times, Dr. Corbett never received a passing score.
12. On or around August 21, 2018, the ARP administrators removed Dr. Corbett from the clinical
duties rotation at the University Medical Center and required her to undergo an evaluation at
the employee assistance program because she made posts on Facebook that caused concern
about her well-being. True and correct copies of the email correspondence regarding the
decision is attached as Exhibit D.
13. After Dr. Corbett failed the ABA Basic Exam for the third time in June 2019, Dr. Surendra
Varma met with Dr. Corbett and informed her that if she was not able to become board certified
in anesthesiology she should consider changing her specialty and that the GME and the
anesthesiology department would assist her in trying to obtain another position in a specialty
of interest to her. However, Dr. Corbett declined to change specialties and chose to remain in
the ARP agreeing to amend her 2019 GME Program Agreement.
14. Because Dr. Corbett failed the ABA Basic Exam after multiple attempts, she was given notice
on December 10, 2019 that she was being recommend for dismissal as a resident from the
program for deficiency in medical knowledge.
15. I am aware of Shannon Corbett's assertion that she was dismissed from the ARP because of
her gender.
16. Any allegation that Dr. Corbett was dismissed from TTUHSC's ARP because of her gender or
in retaliation for her internal administrative complaint is unsupported by the facts.
17. TTUHSC's decision to dismiss Dr. Corbett was made in good faith and based solely on her
failure to meet the qualification requirements to continue in the Residency Program, consistent
with the TTUHSC procedure.
18. Specifically, Dr. Corbett was dismissed from TTUHSC's Anesthesiology Residency Program
because of her repeated failure to pass the American Board of Anesthesiologists Basic Exam
despite being given four opportunities to do so.
2
11
11
Case
1919 Filed
Page 12
12 of 100
PageID 200
200
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed on the 7 day of November, 2022.
J. Edward Bates
3
12
12
EXHIBIT
A
Case
5:21-cv-00281-H
Document
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document
1919 Filed
Filed 11/08/22
Page13
13 of 100
PageID201
201
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM AGREEMENT
2016-2017
This Graduate Medical Education Program Agreement ("Agreement") hereby offers a residency training position at the
Lubbock campus, in the Department of Anesthesiology as a PGY-1. Accepting this offer by signing this document constitutes a fully
executed Agreement.
Terms and Conditions
1. Term. This Agreement is entered into July 1, 2016 by and between Texas Tech University Health
Sciences Center ("TTUHSC") and Shannon Corbett, MD, ("Resident"), collectively referred to as
"Parties," the term of which will expire no later than twelve (12) months following the beginning date of training,
June 30, 2017. In the event of an approved leave of absence, any time beyond the number of days available
through the training program's vacation time/sick leave shall be without pay and shall be added to the duration of training at
his/her current PGY level.
2. Salary. Resident shall receive an annual salary of $50,217.31 for the term of this Agreement, to be paid monthly.
3. Consideration. In consideration of the promises and mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the Parties agree as
follows:
3.1 Conditions. Resident is responsible for obtaining a Texas medical license or a Texas Physician-in-Training (PIT) permit and
paying the required fee set by the Texas Medical Board. This Agreement is CONDITIONAL upon the timely and successful
completion of all requirements of the TMB to obtain a postgraduate PIT, or medical license, where applicable. In addition,
Resident will be required to undergo a criminal background check prior to beginning training. Any and all additional
requirements specified by TTUHSC or the applicable department must be met prior to assuming duties at TTUHSC, but no
later than the beginning date of the term of this appointment. Failure to satisfy any or all requirements prior to the indicated
start date will either: (1) prevent Resident from being appointed, i.e., result in Resident's training Agreement being deemed
null and void; or, (2) upon approval of the Program Director and Designated Institutional Official, may necessitate a change
in the start date of the term of appointment, thus delaying the commencement of salary and benefits. Resident will not be
allowed to begin work nor receive pay or benefits until his/her PIT or Texas medical license has been received by the GME
office.
If at some time subsequent to beginning a residency or fellowship program it is learned that qualifications have not been met
including, but not limited to, Resident's medical school education curriculum, TTUHSC will deem this Agreement null and
void. In the event Resident, for whatever reason, is unable to meet the requirements for practicing medicine at any of the
affiliated hospitals or other participating institutions, this Agreement shall likewise be deemed null and void.
3.2 Duty to Disclose. Resident has an affirmative duty and agrees to disclose to the Program Director immediately, i.e., no later
than 48 hours of learning such fact, any information, current or past, that could affect eligibility for, or status regarding, a
Texas postgraduate PIT permit or medical license, if applicable, prior to beginning the residency program. In the event
information is learned during the course of a residency or fellowship which could affect a PIT permit or license, Resident
must inform the Program Director immediately, i.e., no later than 48 hours. Such information may include, but is not limited
to, loss or limitation of license, inability to pursue training or provide patient care, inability to secure necessary visa
clearance, conflict of interest, or any incident involving moral turpitude of Resident.
3.3 Policies and Bylaws. Resident shall abide by the policies, rules and regulations of TTUHSC and the applicable Medical Staff
Bylaws, policies and procedures of the affiliated hospital(s) to which he/she is assigned. Resident shall participate in all
educational and training activities and shall perform all services required as a resident. Resident shall conduct himself/herself
as a member of the professional team. Personal appearance and hygiene should always be appropriate to the circumstances.
3.4 Ethics. Resident shall adhere to the American Medical Association's "Principles of Medical Ethics," which is incorporated
herein by reference: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics.page. In
addition, Resident is expected to accurately and honestly log duty hours and report any non-compliance to the Program
Director and Institutional GME Office.
3.5 Assignments. The assignment schedule of Resident is dictated by the Program Director of each respective department and is
subject to approval by the Chair and/or Regional Dean, where applicable.
Confidential Peer Review
13
GME Program Agreement 2016-2017
Revised: January 29, 2016
D-000442
Case
1919 Filed
Page 14
14 of 100
PageID202
202
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
3.6 Liability Insurance. Professional liability insurance is provided through the TTUHSC Medical Malpractice Self-Insurance
Plan, at no cost to Resident. This insurance covers Resident when performing assigned duties during Resident's training
program at TTUHSC. Such coverage is valid at affiliated hospitals and other participating institutions to which Resident is
assigned. Professional liability insurance does NOT cover any outside professional activities, i.e., "moonlighting."
3.7 Training Experience. TTUHSC will provide a training experience that, when satisfactorily completed, meets the standards as
set forth in the "Program Requirements" and approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
Resident agrees to provide uninterrupted service to TTUHSC to the best of his/her ability. The ultimate goal of GME
training at TTUHSC is to graduate competent physicians, eligible for licensure in the State of Texas and qualified to sit for
specialty specific ABMS examinations.
3.8 Certificate. If the resident fulfills all training requirements for certification and discharge to the satisfaction of the Program
Director, TTUHSC will issue a certificate of completion. However, TTUHSC reserves the right to withhold the certificate of
completion until Resident is in compliance with all rules, regulations, personnel policies, payment of any and all money due,
and completion of all medical records.
4. Benefits. No benefits accrue to Resident other than those specified or referred to in this Agreement including, but not limited
to, those contained in the House Staff Policies and Procedures.
5. Moonlighting. In accordance with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education policy, residents in the first
year of training at TTUHSC, Resident shall devote his/her full time to the educational and training program. Resident is
expected to follow Institutional and Program moonlighting policies and obtain approval in writing in advance of any outside
remunerative activities.
6. Educational Activities. Resident shall participate fully in the educational and training activities of his/her program and
institution and assume responsibility for teaching and supervising other residents and medical students, as required.
7. Essential Functions of Job. Resident acknowledges he/she is able to perform the essential functions of a physician in
training and will immediately, and in no event later than 48 hours, notify his/her Program Director and Department Chair of
any condition or event including, but not limited to, substance abuse, disability, or physical, emotional, mental impairment,
temporary or permanent, of any kind, which might in any way, and in the judgment of TTUHSC, compromise or affect
training, patient care or safety to self or others.
8. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be
affected by such invalidity.
9. Release of Information. Resident agrees to release educational and training information to TTUHSC by executing the
"Authorization for Release of Educational Information," which is provided in a separate document.
10. Compliance with Terms and Conditions. Resident agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, which
incorporates the current TTUHSC School of Medicine GME Policies and Procedures, and further acknowledges
being advised that the SOM GME Policies and Procedures are accessible on the TTUHSC GME website at
http://www.ttuhsc.edu/som/gme. Resident is responsible for carefully reviewing this website, referring to the Policy
throughout his/her training at TTUHSC, and adhering to the TTUHSC School of Medicine GME Policies and
Procedures.
11. Signature Required. This Agreement shall be considered binding when signed by all Parties. However, Resident shall not
receive any portion of his/her salary or other benefits until all requirements, as outlined hereinabove, have been met.
PROGRAM DIRECTOR DATE 5/14/16
Shannon Corbett 4-10-16
RESIDENT DATE
For Internal Use Only
for DEAN/REGIONAL DEAN DATE 6/17/16
PIT/Full TX License Expires
DPS Expires
DEA Expires
ACLS Expires
Confidential Peer Review
14
GME Program Agreement 2016-2017
Revised: January 29, 2016
D-000443
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 15
15 of 100
PageID203
203
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM AGREEMENT
2017-2018
This AGREEMENT is between TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER (TTUHSC), a
public institution of higher education in the State of Texas, and Shannon Corbett, MD (Resident/Fellow). Both
TTUHSC and Resident/Fellow are also referred to herein as "Party" or collectively as "Parties."
WHEREAS, the Resident/Fellow meets the Resident/Fellow eligibility qualifications established by the
Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or applicable accrediting body and TTUHSC;
WHEREAS, TTUHSC has offered and the Resident/Fellow has accepted an appointment in the applicable TTUHSC
training program, which has been accredited by ACGME or applicable accrediting body; and
WHEREAS, TTUHSC is willing to train and employ the Resident/Fellow provided that the Resident/Fellow
remains in good standing in the training program and otherwise complies with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:
TERMS and CONDITIONS
1. Appointment. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Resident/Fellow hereby accepts
appointment as a Resident/Fellow in the TTUHSC Department of Anesthesiology at the Program Graduate Year
(PGY) 2 level.
2. Term. This Agreement is for a 12-month period beginning on July 1, 2017 and ending on June 30, 2018. In the
event of an approved leave of absence, any time beyond the number of days available through the training program's
vacation time/sick leave shall be without pay and shall be added to the duration of training at his/her current PGY
level.
3. Salary. Resident/Fellow shall receive an annual salary of $53,411.71 for the term of this Agreement, to be paid
monthly. Payment will be inclusive from the first day to the last day of the current month. Salary payments shall
be subject to federal withholding taxes and any other applicable taxes. Resident/Fellow acknowledges that the
compensation amounts stipulated are subject to change on an annual basis at the sole discretion of TTUHSC. In the
event Resident's/Fellow's salary is increased as approved by the TTUHSC Graduate Medical Education Committee
(GMEC) and authorized by the institution's funding sources, such increase will take place at the start of the next
academic cycle, for example July 1st of each year (or the anniversary of Resident's/Fellow's start date if the
Resident/Fellow is off-cycle).
4. Consideration/Conditions. In consideration of the promises and mutual covenants and agreements contained
herein, the Parties agree to the conditions listed below. These conditions, and any and all additional requirements
specified by TTUHSC or the applicable department must be met prior to assuming duties at TTUHSC, but no later
than the beginning date of the term of this appointment. Failure to satisfy any or all requirements prior to the
indicated start date will either: (1) prevent Resident/Fellow from being appointed, i.e., result in Resident's/Fellow's
training Agreement being deemed null and void; or, (2) upon approval of the Program Director and Designated
Institutional Official, may necessitate a change in the start date of the term of appointment, thus delaying the
commencement of salary and benefits. Resident/Fellow will not be allowed to begin work nor receive pay or
benefits until his/her PIT or Texas medical license has been received by the GME office. If at some time subsequent
to beginning a residency or fellowship program it is learned that qualifications have not been met including, but not
limited to, completion of Resident's/Fellow's medical school education curriculum, TTUHSC will deem this
Agreement null and void. In the event Resident/Fellow, for whatever reason, is unable to meet the requirements
for practicing medicine at any of the affiliated hospitals or other participating institutions, this Agreement shall
likewise be deemed null and void.
Resident/Fellow initial here for each page stating you have read and understand SC
GME Program Agreement 2017-2018
Revised: February 28, 2017
Confidential Peer Review
15
D-000452
Case
1919 Filed
Page 16
16 of
PageID204
204
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
of 100
100 PageID
These conditions are as follows:
4.1 Licensure/Permits/Credentialing. Resident/Fellow is responsible for obtaining a Texas medical license or a
Texas Physician-in-Training (PIT) permit and paying the required fee set by the Texas Medical Board (TMB).
This Agreement is CONDITIONAL upon the timely and successful completion of all requirements of the
TMB to obtain a postgraduate PIT, or medical license, where applicable. Resident/Fellow will not be allowed
to begin work nor receive pay or benefits until his/her PIT or Medical License has been received by the
TTUHSC Graduate Medical Education (GME) Office. Resident/Fellow must also provide appropriate and
sufficient documentation of eligibility for employment in the United States, and valid ECFMG certificate, if
applicable. Resident/Fellow must fulfill credentialing and pre-employment/pre-placement requirements of
TTUHSC and other participating hospitals/institutions, if applicable.
4.2 Criminal Background Check. Resident/Fellow will be required to undergo, and satisfactorily complete, a
criminal background check that establishes he/she is eligible for clinical training in accordance with TTUHSC
Operating Policy (OP) 10.20, "Criminal Background Checks for Students, Residents, and Trainees" prior to
beginning training.
4.3 Duty to Disclose. Resident/Fellow has an affirmative duty and agrees to disclose to the Program Director
immediately, i.e., no later than 48 hours of learning such fact, any information, current or past, that could
affect eligibility for, or status regarding, a Texas postgraduate PIT permit or medical license, if applicable,
prior to beginning the residency program. In the event information is learned during the course of a residency
or fellowship which could affect a PIT permit or license, Resident/Fellow must inform the Program Director
immediately, i.e., no later than 48 hours. Such information may include, but is not limited to, loss or limitation
of license, inability to pursue training or provide patient care, inability to secure necessary Visa clearance,
conflict of interest, arrest, or charge or conviction of a crime, indictment, imprisonment, placement on
probation, or deferred adjudication, or any incident involving moral turpitude of Resident/Fellow.
4.4 Policies and Bylaws. Resident/Fellow shall abide by the policies, rules and regulations of TTUHSC and the
applicable Medical Staff Bylaws, policies and procedures of the affiliated hospital(s) to which he/she is
assigned. Resident/Fellow shall participate in all educational and training activities and shall perform all
services required as a Resident/Fellow. Resident/Fellow shall conduct himself/herself as a member of the
professional team. Personal appearance and hygiene should always be appropriate to the circumstances.
4.5 Ethics. Resident/Fellow shall adhere to the American Medical Association's "Principles of Medical Ethics",
which is incorporated herein by reference: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medicalethics/code-medical-ethics.page.
4.6 Duty Hours. Resident/Fellow is expected to accurately and honestly log duty hours and report any non-
compliance to the Program Director and Institutional GME Office.
5. Essential Functions of Job. Resident/Fellow acknowledges he/she is able to perform the essential functions of a
physician in training and will immediately, and in no event later than 48 hours, notify his/her Program Director and
Department Chair of any condition or event including, but not limited to, substance abuse, disability, or physical,
emotional, mental impairment, temporary or permanent, of any kind, which might in any way, and in the judgment
of TTUHSC, compromise or affect training, patient care or safety to self or others.
6. Training Experience. TTUHSC will provide a training experience that, when satisfactorily completed, meets the
standards as set forth in the "Program Requirements" approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical
Education. Resident/Fellow agrees to provide uninterrupted service to TTUHSC to the best of his/her ability. The
ultimate goal of GME training at TTUHSC is to graduate competent physicians, eligible for licensure in the State
of Texas and qualified to sit for specialty specific ABMS examinations.
Resident/Fellow initial here for each page stating you have read and understand SC
GME Program Agreement 2017-2018
Revised: February 28, 2017
Confidential Peer Review
16
D-000453
Case
1919 Filed
Page 17
17 of
PageID205
205
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
of 100
100 PageID
7. Assignments. The assignment schedule of Resident/Fellow is dictated by the Program Director of each respective
department and is subject to approval by the Chair and/or Regional Dean, where applicable.
8. Liability Insurance. Professional liability insurance is provided through the TTUHSC Medical Malpractice SelfInsurance Plan, at no cost to Resident/Fellow while performing assigned duties during Resident's/Fellow's training
program at TTUHSC. Such coverage is valid at affiliated hospitals and other participating institutions to which
Resident/Fellow is assigned. Professional liability insurance does NOT cover any outside professional activities,
i.e., "moonlighting."
9. Moonlighting. In accordance with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education policy,
Residents/Fellows in the first year of training at TTUHSC shall devote his/her full time to the educational and
training program. In subsequent years of training, Resident/Fellow is expected to follow Institutional and Program
moonlighting policies and obtain approval in writing in advance of any outside remunerative activities.
10. Benefits. No benefits accrue to Resident/Fellow other than those specified or referred to in this Agreement
including, but not limited to, those contained in the TTUHSC GME House Staff Policies and Procedures.
Resident/Fellow acknowledges that benefits are subject to change during the term of this Agreement.
11. Educational Activities. Resident/Fellow shall participate fully in the educational and training activities of his/her
program and institution and assume responsibility for teaching and supervising other Residents/Fellows and medical
students, as required.
12. Reappointment and Promotion. Reappointment and promotion decisions are made on a yearly basis by the
TTUHSC GME Program's Clinical Competency Committee, under the direction of the GME Program Director.
Notice will be provided to the Resident/Fellow no later than four (4) months prior to the ending date of the current
agreement; however, if the primary reason(s) for Non-Reappointment/Non-Promotion occur(s) within the four (4)
months prior to the ending date of the current agreement, the Resident/Fellow will be given as much notice as the
circumstances reasonably allow prior to the end of the agreement period. If Resident/Fellow fails to perform
satisfactorily or to progress during his or her training program, he/she may be subject to disciplinary action,
including retention at the current level of training under probation, non-reappointment, or dismissal. The decision
not to reappoint or promote a Resident/Fellow may be appealed following the protocol specified in the TTUHSC
GME House Staff Policies and Procedures.
13. Certificate of Completion. If the Resident/Fellow fulfills all training requirements for certification and discharge
to the satisfaction of the Program Director, TTUHSC will issue a certificate of completion. However, TTUHSC
reserves the right to withhold the certificate of completion until Resident/Fellow is in compliance with all rules,
regulations, personnel policies, payment of any and all money due, and completion of all medical records.
14. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement is held illegal, invalid, or void by a court of competent
jurisdiction under any applicable law, it shall be severable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be
impaired, and this Agreement shall be interpreted as far as possible so as to give effect to its stated purpose.
15. Governing Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted, governed, and construed in all respects under the
laws of the State of Texas. Venue shall be in the state or federal courts of Lubbock County, Texas.
16. Release of Information. Resident/Fellow agrees to release educational and training information to TTUHSC by
executing the "Authorization for Release of Educational Information," which is provided in a separate document.
17. Compliance with Terms and Conditions. Resident/Fellow agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, which incorporates the current TTUHSC GME House Staff Policies and Procedures, and further
acknowledges being advised that the GME House Staff Policies and Procedures are accessible on the TTUHSC
GME website at http://www.ttuhsc.edu/som/gme. Resident/Fellow is responsible for carefully reviewing this
website, referring to the Policy throughout his/her training at TTUHSC, and adhering to the TTUHSC GME House
Staff Policies and Procedures.
Resident/Fellow initial here for each page stating you have read and understand SC
GME Program Agreement 2017-2018
Revised: February 28, 2017
Confidential Peer Review
17
D-000454
Case
1919 Filed
Page 18
18 of 100
PageID206
206
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
18. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written amendment signed by all Parties.
19. Termination. TTUHSC reserves the right to terminate this Agreement, and dismiss Resident/Fellow immediately
for cause, upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
a. The loss, suspension or probation of Resident's/Fellow's Texas medical license or Texas Physician-inTraining (PIT) permit;
b. Failure to maintain valid work authorization to work in the United States through loss of appropriate Visa
status or other U.S. Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services work authorization, or failure to
demonstrate ECFMG certification or certification from other similar authoritative bodies;
c. The conviction of a felony.
The Dean of the School of Medicine has the sole authority to terminate this Agreement for cause.
Resident/Fellow shall have the right to appeal dismissal from the Residency/Fellowship Program as set forth in the
House Staff Policies and Procedures.
This Agreement may also be terminated at any time by the mutual consent of both Parties and shall automatically
terminate upon the Resident's/Fellow's death.
Other criteria for dismissal is described in the House Staff Policies and Procedures. In the event a
Resident/Fellow is dismissed under the House Staff Policies and Procedures, this Agreement shall also terminate.
20. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties hereto, and there are no other
agreements, representations or warranties between the Parties other than those set forth herein. No oral statements
or prior written materials not specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect. This Agreement
supersedes any previous understanding between the Parties, oral or otherwise.
21. Signature Required. This Agreement shall be considered binding when signed by all Parties. However,
Resident/Fellow shall not receive any portion of his/her salary or other benefits until all requirements, as outlined
hereinabove, have been met.
Shannon Conlisk 3-10-17 [signature] 5/4/17
RESIDENT/FELLOW DATE PROGRAM DIRECTOR DATE
for [signature] 5/11/17
DEAN/REGIONAL DEAN DATE
For Internal Use Only
PIT/Full TX License Expires 6/30/2020
ACLS Expires 6/1/2018
DEA Expires 6/30/2020
GME Program Agreement 2017-2018
Resident/Fellow initial here for each page stating you have read and understand ________
Revised: February 28, 2017
Confidential Peer Review
18
D-000455
Case
1919 Filed
Page 19
19 of 100
PageID207
207
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM AGREEMENT
2018-2019
This AGREEMENT is between TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER (TTUHSC), a
public institution of higher education in the State of Texas, and Shannon Corbett, MD (Resident/Fellow). Both
TTUHSC and Resident/Fellow are also referred to herein as "Party" or collectively as "Parties."
WHEREAS, the Resident/Fellow meets the Resident/Fellow eligibility qualifications established by the
Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or applicable accrediting body and TTUHSC;
WHEREAS, TTUHSC has offered and the Resident/Fellow has accepted an appointment in the applicable TTUHSC
training program, which has been accredited by ACGME or applicable accrediting body; and
WHEREAS, TTUHSC is willing to train and employ the Resident/Fellow provided that the Resident/Fellow
remains in good standing in the training program and otherwise complies with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:
TERMS and CONDITIONS
1. Appointment. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Resident/Fellow hereby accepts
appointment as a Resident/Fellow in the TTUHSC Department of Anesthesiology at the Program Graduate Year
(PGY) 3 level.
2. Term. This Agreement is for a 12-month period beginning on July 1, 2018 and ending on June 30, 2019. In the
event of an approved leave of absence, any time beyond the number of days available through the training program's
vacation time/sick leave shall be without pay and shall be added to the duration of training at his/her current PGY
level.
3. Salary. Resident/Fellow shall receive an annual salary of $56,200.32 for the term of this Agreement, to be paid
monthly. Payment will be inclusive from the first day to the last day of the current month. Salary payments shall
be subject to federal withholding taxes and any other applicable taxes. Resident/Fellow acknowledges that the
compensation amounts stipulated are subject to change on an annual basis at the sole discretion of TTUHSC. In the
event Resident's/Fellow's salary is increased as approved by the TTUHSC Graduate Medical Education Committee
(GMEC) and authorized by the institution's funding sources, such increase will take place at the start of the next
academic cycle, for example July 1^{st} of each year (or the anniversary of Resident's/Fellow's start date if the
Resident/Fellow is off-cycle).
4. Consideration/Conditions. In consideration of the promises and mutual covenants and agreements contained
herein, the Parties agree to the conditions listed below. These conditions, and any and all additional requirements
specified by TTUHSC or the applicable department must be met prior to assuming duties at TTUHSC, but no later
than the beginning date of the term of this appointment. Failure to satisfy any or all requirements prior to the
indicated start date will either: (1) prevent Resident/Fellow from being appointed, i.e., result in Resident's/Fellow's
training Agreement being deemed null and void; or, (2) upon approval of the Program Director and Designated
Institutional Official, may necessitate a change in the start date of the term of appointment, thus delaying the
commencement of salary and benefits. Resident/Fellow will not be allowed to begin work nor receive pay or
benefits until his/her PIT or Texas medical license has been received by the GME office. If at some time subsequent
to beginning a residency or fellowship program it is learned that qualifications have not been met including, but not
limited to, completion of Resident's/Fellow's medical school education curriculum, TTUHSC will deem this
Agreement null and void. In the event Resident/Fellow, for whatever reason, is unable to meet the requirements
for practicing medicine at any of the affiliated hospitals or other participating institutions, this Agreement shall
likewise be deemed null and void.
Resident/Fel ow initial here for each page stating you have read and understand [signature]
GME Program Agreement 2018-2019
Revised: February 28, 2017
Confidential Peer Review
19
D-000475
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 20
20 of 100
PageID 208
208
These conditions are as follows:
4.1 Licensure/Permits/Credentialing. Resident/Fellow is responsible for obtaining a Texas medical license or a
Texas Physician-in-Training (PIT) permit and paying the required fee set by the Texas Medical Board (TMB).
This Agreement is CONDITIONAL upon the timely and successful completion of all requirements of the
TMB to obtain a postgraduate PIT, or medical license, where applicable. Resident/Fellow will not be allowed
to begin work nor receive pay or benefits until his/her PIT or Medical License has been received by the
TTUHSC Graduate Medical Education (GME) Office. Resident/Fellow must also provide appropriate and
sufficient documentation of eligibility for employment in the United States, and valid ECFMG certificate, if
applicable. Resident/Fellow must fulfill credentialing and pre-employment/pre-placement requirements of
TTUHSC and other participating hospitals/institutions, if applicable.
4.2 Criminal Background Check. Resident/Fellow will be required to undergo, and satisfactorily complete, a
criminal background check that establishes he/she is eligible for clinical training in accordance with TTUHSC
Operating Policy (OP) 10.20, "Criminal Background Checks for Students, Residents, and Trainees" prior to
beginning training.
4.3 Duty to Disclose. Resident/Fellow has an affirmative duty and agrees to disclose to the Program Director
immediately, i.e., no later than 48 hours of learning such fact, any information, current or past, that could
affect eligibility for, or status regarding, a Texas postgraduate PIT permit or medical license, if applicable,
prior to beginning the residency program. In the event information is learned during the course of a residency
or fellowship which could affect a PIT permit or license, Resident/Fellow must inform the Program Director
immediately, i.e., no later than 48 hours. Such information may include, but is not limited to, loss or limitation
of license, inability to pursue training or provide patient care, inability to secure necessary Visa clearance,
conflict of interest, arrest, or charge or conviction of a crime, indictment, imprisonment, placement on
probation, or deferred adjudication, or any incident involving moral turpitude of Resident/Fellow.
4.4 Policies and Bylaws. Resident/Fellow shall abide by the policies, rules and regulations of TTUHSC and the
applicable Medical Staff Bylaws, policies and procedures of the affiliated hospital(s) to which he/she is
assigned. Resident/Fellow shall participate in all educational and training activities and shall perform all
services required as a Resident/Fellow. Resident/Fellow shall conduct himself/herself as a member of the
professional team. Personal appearance and hygiene should always be appropriate to the circumstances.
4.5 Ethics. Resident/Fellow shall adhere to the American Medical Association's "Principles of Medical Ethics",
which is incorporated herein by reference: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medicalethics/code-medical-ethics.page.
4.6 Duty Hours. Resident/Fellow is expected to accurately and honestly log duty hours and report any noncompliance to the Program Director and Institutional GME Office.
5. Essential Functions of Job. Resident/Fellow acknowledges he/she is able to perform the essential functions of a
physician in training and will immediately, and in no event later than 48 hours, notify his/her Program Director and
Department Chair of any condition or event including, but not limited to, substance abuse, disability, or physical,
emotional, mental impairment, temporary or permanent, of any kind, which might in any way, and in the judgment
of TTUHSC, compromise or affect training, patient care or safety to self or others.
6. Training Experience. TTUHSC will provide a training experience that, when satisfactorily completed, meets the
standards as set forth in the "Program Requirements" approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical
Education. Resident/Fellow agrees to provide uninterrupted service to TTUHSC to the best of his/her ability. The
ultimate goal of GME training at TTUHSC is to graduate competent physicians, eligible for licensure in the State
of Texas and qualified to sit for specialty specific ABMS examinations.
Resident/Fel ow initial here for each page stating you have read and understand LC
GME Program Agreement 2018-2019
Revised: February 28, 2017
Confidential Peer Review
20
D-000476
Resident/Fellow initial here for each page stating you have read and understand: [signature]
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 21
21 of 100
PageID209
209
7. Assignments. The assignment schedule of Resident/Fellow is dictated by the Program Director of each respective
department and is subject to approval by the Chair and/or Regional Dean, where applicable.
8. Liability Insurance. Professional liability insurance is provided through the TTUHSC Medical Malpractice SelfInsurance Plan, at no cost to Resident/Fellow while performing assigned duties during Resident's/Fellow's training
program at TTUHSC. Such coverage is valid at affiliated hospitals and other participating institutions to which
Resident/Fellow is assigned. Professional liability insurance does NOT cover any outside professional activities,
i.e., "moonlighting."
9. Moonlighting. In accordance with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education policy,
Residents/Fellows in the first year of training at TTUHSC shall devote his/her full time to the educational and
training program. In subsequent years of training, Resident/Fellow is expected to follow Institutional and Program
moonlighting policies and obtain approval in writing in advance of any outside remunerative activities.
10. Benefits. No benefits accrue to Resident/Fellow other than those specified or referred to in this Agreement
including, but not limited to, those contained in the TTUHSC GME House Staff Policies and Procedures.
Resident/Fellow acknowledges that benefits are subject to change during the term of this Agreement.
11. Educational Activities. Resident/Fellow shall participate fully in the educational and training activities of his/her
program and institution and assume responsibility for teaching and supervising other Residents/Fellows and medical
students, as required.
12. Reappointment and Promotion. Reappointment and promotion decisions are made on a yearly basis by the
TTUHSC GME Program's Clinical Competency Committee, under the direction of the GME Program Director.
Notice will be provided to the Resident/Fellow no later than four (4) months prior to the ending date of the current
agreement; however, if the primary reason(s) for Non-Reappointment/Non-Promotion occur(s) within the four (4)
months prior to the ending date of the current agreement, the Resident/Fellow will be given as much notice as the
circumstances reasonably allow prior to the end of the agreement period. If Resident/Fellow fails to perform
satisfactorily or to progress during his or her training program, he/she may be subject to disciplinary action,
including retention at the current level of training under probation, non-reappointment, or dismissal. The decision
not to reappoint or promote a Resident/Fellow may be appealed following the protocol specified in the TTUHSC
GME House Staff Policies and Procedures.
13. Certificate of Completion. If the Resident/Fellow fulfills all training requirements for certification and discharge
to the satisfaction of the Program Director, TTUHSC will issue a certificate of completion. However, TTUHSC
reserves the right to withhold the certificate of completion until Resident/Fellow is in compliance with all rules,
regulations, personnel policies, payment of any and all money due, and completion of all medical records.
14. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement is held illegal, invalid, or void by a court of competent
jurisdiction under any applicable law, it shall be severable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be
impaired, and this Agreement shall be interpreted as far as possible so as to give effect to its stated purpose.
15. Governing Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted, governed, and construed in all respects under the
laws of the State of Texas. Venue shall be in the state or federal courts of Lubbock County, Texas.
16. Release of Information. Resident/Fellow agrees to release educational and training information to TTUHSC by
executing the "Authorization for Release of Educational Information," which is provided in a separate document.
17. Compliance with Terms and Conditions. Resident/Fellow agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, which incorporates the current TTUHSC GME House Staff Policies and Procedures, and further
acknowledges being advised that the GME House Staff Policies and Procedures are accessible on the TTUHSC
GME website at http://www.ttuhsc.edu/som/gme. Resident/Fellow is responsible for carefully reviewing this
website, referring to the Policy throughout his/her training at TTUHSC, and adhering to the TTUHSC GME House
Staff Policies and Procedures.
GME Program Agreement 2018-2019
Revised: February 28, 2017
Confidential Peer Review
21
D-000477
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 22
22 of 100
PageID210
210
18. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written amendment signed by all Parties.
19. Termination. TTUHSC reserves the right to terminate this Agreement, and dismiss Resident/Fellow immediately
for cause, upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
a. The loss, suspension or probation of Resident's/Fellow's Texas medical license or Texas Physician-in-
Training (PIT) permit;
b. Failure to maintain valid work authorization to work in the United States through loss of appropriate Visa
status or other U.S. Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services work authorization, or failure to
demonstrate ECFMG certification or certification from other similar authoritative bodies;
c. The conviction of a felony.
The Dean of the School of Medicine has the sole authority to terminate this Agreement for cause.
Resident/Fellow shall have the right to appeal dismissal from the Residency/Fellowship Program as set forth in the
House Staff Policies and Procedures.
This Agreement may also be terminated at any time by the mutual consent of both Parties and shall automatically
terminate upon the Resident's/Fellow's death.
Other criteria for dismissal is described in the House Staff Policies and Procedures. In the event a
Resident/Fellow is dismissed under the House Staff Policies and Procedures, this Agreement shall also terminate.
20. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties hereto, and there are no other
agreements, representations or warranties between the Parties other than those set forth herein. No oral statements
or prior written materials not specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect. This Agreement
supersedes any previous understanding between the Parties, oral or otherwise.
21. Signature Required. This Agreement shall be considered binding when signed by all Parties. However,
Resident/Fellow shall not receive any portion of his/her salary or other benefits until all requirements, as outlined
hereinabove, have been met.
[signature] 6/12/18
Shannon Corbett 6-12-18
RESIDENT/FELLOW DATE
PROGRAM DIRECTOR DATE
for [signature] 7/9/18
DEAN/REGIONAL DEAN DATE
For Internal Use Only
PIT/Full TX License Expires 6/30/2020
ACLS Expires 6/1/2018
DEA Expires 6/30/2020
Resident/Fel ow initial here for each page stating you have read and understand SC
GME Program Agreement 2018-2019
Revised: February 28, 2017
Confidential Peer Review
22
D-000478
Amendment
Case
1919 Filed
Page 23
23 of
PageID211
211
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
of 100
100 PageID
Graduate Medical Education Program Agreement
Thisdocumentconstitutesanamendmenttothe2018-2019GraduateMedicalEducationProgramAgrementbetwenShanonCorbett,M.D.andTexasTechUniversityHealthSciencesCenter(TTUHSC).Bysigningbelow,youagreethatyouwilcomplyataltimeswiththefolowingconditionsandrequirements,asmaybeamendedbytheOficeofGMEand/orProgramDirectorofAnesthesiologyResidency.(Thenumberingoftheconditionsandrequirementsinnowayrepresentsanorderofimportanceinthecontent.)
Requirements:
(1)YourresidencytrainingpositionwithT UHSCiscontingentonyourmaintaining:aphysician-in-trainingpermitfromtheTexasMedicalBoard;compliancewithACGMEcom onandAnesthesiologyspecificrequirements;AnesthesiologyResidencyexpectations;andap licablehospitalandmedicalstaf privileges.
(2) You understand that you must be able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without a reasonable accommodation.
(3)YouunderstandandacknowledgethattheAmericanBoardofAnesthesiology(ABA)requirespassageoftheABABasicExam,thefirstofthre stagedexamsforABABoardCertification,priortopromotiontotheCA-3(PGY4)year.Todate,youhavefailedtwoatemptsoftheABABasicExamandreceivedan·Unsatisfactory·reporttoABAfortheJuly-December2018reportingperiod.
(4)YouunderstandandacknowledgethatathirdfailedattemptontheABABasicExamwildemonstrateasignificantdeficiencyinmedicalknowledgeandwilresultinarecom endationfordismisalfromtheprogram.ShouldtheresultsoftheJune2019ABABasicExamnotbereceivedbythecurentexpirationdateofyour2018-2019GraduateMedicalEducationProgramAgrement,youwilbeextendedatyourcurentCA-2(PGY3)leveluntilreceipt.
(5)Youunderstandandacknowledgethatsuc essfulpas ageoftheABABasicExamdoesnotguaranteepromotiontoCA-3(PGY4)level.StatusintheprogramisdeterminedbytheClinicalCompetencyCom iteethroughas es mentacros al areasofcompetency,andmayresultinrecom endationofextensionoftraining.
(6) Should you fail to comply with the conditions and requirements outlined herein, you wil be removed from patient care immediately. In ad ition, non-compliance will require that al ap ropriate entities, including the Texas Medical Board, be notified.
Shannon Corbett
2-1-19
Shannon Corbett, MD
DATE
PGY III, Anesthesiology Resident
1/25/19
DATE
Alan Santos, MD
Program Director, Anesthesiology Residency
Confidential Peer Review
23
D-000495
Graduate Medical Education Program Agreement
Amendment
This document constitutes an amendment to the 2019-2020 Graduate Medical Education Program
Agreement between Shannon Corbett, M.D. and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
(TTUHSC). By signing below, you agree that you will comply at all times with the following conditions
and requirements, as may be amended by the Office of GME and/or Program Director of Anesthesiology
Residency. (The numbering of the conditions and requirements in no way represents an order of importance in the content.)
Requirements:
(1) Your residency training position with TTUHSC is contingent on your maintaining: a physician-intraining permit from the Texas Medical Board; compliance with ACGME common and
Anesthesiology specific requirements; Anesthesiology Residency expectations; and applicable
hospital and medical staff privileges.
(2) You understand that you must be able to perform the essential functions of your job with or
without a reasonable accommodation.
(3) You understand and acknowledge that the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) requires
passage of the ABA Basic Exam, the first of three staged exams for ABA Board Certification, prior
to promotion to the CA-3 (PGY 4) year. To date, you have failed three attempts of the ABA Basic
Exam and received an "Unsatisfactory" report to ABA for two consecutive six-month reporting
periods.
(4) You understand and acknowledge that the TTUHSC Anesthesia Faculty have afforded a fourth
and final attempt to pass the ABA basic Exam. During the period leading up to the test date in
November 2019, you will serve as a resident performing research, with an assigned faculty mentor,
as well as attend all non-clinical residency activities, but all clinical privileges are withheld. No credit
will be awarded for this six month ABA reporting period.
(5) You understand and acknowledge that a fourth failed attempt on the ABA Basic Exam will
demonstrate a significant deficiency in medical knowledge and will result in an immediate
recommendation for dismissal from the program.
(6) You understand and acknowledge that successful passage of the ABA Basic Exam does
not guarantee promotion to CA-3 (PGY 4) level. Status in the program is determined by
the Clinical Competency Committee through assessment across all areas of competency.
In alignment with the 2019 ABA Policy Book, a passing result on the November 2019 ABA Basic
Exam will allow reentry into the clinical training program, but require an extension of the CA-2
(PGY 3) level of at least 18 months.
(7) Should you fail to comply with the conditions and requirements outlined herein, you will be
removed from patient care immediately. In addition, non-compliance will require that all
appropriate entities, including the Texas Medical Board, be notified.
Signature page to follow
Confidential Peer Review
Resident initial here for each page stating you have read and understand
24
D-000508
Case
1919 Filed
Page 24
24 of
PageID 212
212
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
of 100
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 25
25 of 100
PageID213
213
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
By signing below, you agree that you will comply at all times with the following conditions and
requirements, as may be amended by the Office of GME and/or Program Director of Anesthesiology
Residency.
7-26-19
Shannon Corbett, MD DATE
PGY III, Anesthesiology Resident
7/26/19
Alan Santos, MD DATE
Program Director, Anesthesiology Residency
Confidential Peer Review
Resident initial here for each page stating you have read and understand
25
D-000509
[illegible]
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
4:21-cv-01281-H
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
Document
1919 Filed
Page 26
26 of 100
PageID 214
214
EXHIBIT
B
VR
5/9/17
UNITED STATES MEDICAL LICENSING EXAMINATION ®
·MLE
STEP 3 SCORE REPORT
This score report is provided for the use of the examinee.
Third-party users of score
information are advised to rely solely on official USMLE transcripts.
RECEIVED
MAY 04 [illegible]
Corbett, Shannon Larene
USMLE ID: [REDACTED] Test Date: March 30, 2017
The USMLE is a single examination program consisting of three Steps designed to assess an examinee's
understanding of and ability to apply concepts and principles that are important in health and disease and that
constitute the basis of safe and effective patient care. Step 3 is designed to assess whether an examinee can apply
medical knowledge and understanding of biomedical and clinical science essential for the unsupervised practice of
medicine, with emphasis on patient management in ambulatory settings. The examination consists of two days: Day
1, Foundations of Independent Practice (FIP), assesses an examinee's knowledge of basic medical and scientific
principles essential for effective health care; Day 2, Advanced Clinical Medicine (ACM), assesses the examinee's
ability to apply comprehensive knowledge of health and disease in the context of patient management and the
evolving manifestation of disease over time. Results of the examination are reported to medical licensing authorities
in the United States and its territories for use in granting an initial license to practice medicine. This score represents
your result for the administration of Step 3 that began on the test date shown above.
FAIL | This result is based on the minimum passing score recommended by USMLE for Step 3.
Individual licensing authorities may accept the USMLE-recommended pass/fail result or may
establish a different passing score for their own jurisdictions.
194 | This score is determined by your overal performance on Step 3. For administrations between
January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016, the mean and standard deviation for first-time
examinees from U.S. and Canadian medical schools were approximately 225 and 15,
respectively, with most scores falling between 140 and 260. A score of 190 is recommended
by USMLE to pass Step 3. The standard error of measurement (SEM)* for this scale is
approximately six points.
Effective April 1 2013, test results are reported on a three-digit scale only. Test results reported as passing represent an exam score of 75 or
higher on a two-digit scoring scale.
*Your score is influenced both by your general understanding of clinical medicine and by the specific set of items selected for this Step 3
examination. The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) provides an index of the variation in scores that would be expected to occur if an
examinee were tested repeatedly using different sets of items covering similar content.
Confidential Peer Review
26
D-000448
Case
1919 Filed
Page 27
27 of 100
PageID 215
215
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
UNITED STATES MEDICAL LICENSING EXAMINATION ®
US·MLE
United States
Medical
Licensing
Examination
This score report is provided for the use of the examinee.
®
Third-party users of USMLE information are advised to rely solely on official USMLE transcripts.
Corbett, Shannon Larene
USMLE ID: [REDACTED] Test Date: May 4, 2018
The USMLE is a single examination program consisting of three Steps designed to assess an examinee's
understanding of and ability to apply concepts and principles that are important in health and disease and that
constitute the basis of safe and effective patient care. Step 3 is designed to assess whether an examinee can apply
medical knowledge and understanding of biomedical and clinical science essential for the unsupervised practice of
medicine, with emphasis on patient management in ambulatory settings. The examination consists of two days: Day
1, Foundations of Independent Practice (FIP), assesses an examinee's knowledge of basic medical and scientific
principles essential for effective health care; Day 2, Advanced Clinical Medicine (ACM), assesses the examinee's
ability to apply comprehensive knowledge of health and disease in the context of patient management and the
evolving manifestation of disease over time. Results of the examination are reported to medical licensing authorities
in the United States and its territories for use in granting an initial license to practice medicine. This score§ represents
your result for the administration of Step 3 that began on the test date shown above.
This result is based on the minimum passing score recommended by USMLE for Step 3.
PASS
STEP 3 SCORE REPORT
Individual licensing authorities may accept the USMLE-recommended pass/fail result or may
establish a different passing score for their own jurisdictions.
This score is determined by your overall performance on Step 3. For administrations between
January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017, the mean and standard deviation for first-time
198
examinees from U.S. and Canadian medical schools were approximately 226 and 15,
respectively, with most scores falling between 140 and 260. A score of 196 is recommended
by USMLE to pass Step 3. The standard error of measurement (SEM)· for this scale is
approximately six points.
§Effective April 1, 2013, test results are reported on a three-digit scale only. Test results reported as passing represent an exam score of 75 or
higher on a two-digit scoring scale.
·Your score is influenced both by your general understanding of clinical medicine and by the specific set of items selected for this Step 3
examination. The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) provides an index of the variation in scores that would be expected to occur if an
examinee were tested repeatedly using different sets of items covering similar content.
Confidential Peer Review
27
D-000468
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 28
28 of 100
PageID216
216
EXHIBIT C
AMERICAN BOARD OF ANESTHESIOLOGY
2017 ABA In-Training Examination
Personal Performance Report
Name: Corbett, Shannon LaRene Training Program: 150013 ID Number: [REDACTED]
YourperformanceontheIn-TrainingExamination(ITE)isreportedasascaledscore.Thereare9 Basicitemsand97Advanceditemsinthisexamination.Alsoreportedareyourpercentcorectscoresbasedon9 Basicitemsand97Advanceditemsrespectively.FormoreinformationaboutyourIn-TrainingExaminationscoreandyourPercentCorectScoresforBasicitemsandAdvanceditems,andtocompareyourperformancewithotherresidents,refertothe"GuidelinesforInterpretingYourPersonalPerformanceReport".
Your Scaled Score is: 15
Your Percent Correct Score for Basic Items is: 40
Your Percent Correct Score for Advanced Items is: 47
To help you evaluate your performance in various content areas measured by the ITE, the number of questions answered correctly for each content area is listed below.
For your reference, also listed below for each content area is the number of cor ect answers that represents the 50th percentile, the 75th percentile, and the 90th percentile respectively for al examinees at the same training level as you, i.e., NEW, CB, CA1, CA2 or CA3. You can use this information to as es how your performance compares to al other examinees at the same training level as you.
Category# of Questions# Answered Correctly50%-ile75%-ile90%-ile
Basic
Sciences2911131618
Clinical Sciences: Anesthesia Procedures, Methods, And Techniques4520232730
Clinical
Subspecialties4425232730
Organ-Based and Clinical Sciences6523323741
Special Problems or Issues in Anesthesiology1378910
Page 1 of 1
Confidential Peer Review
28D-000447
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 29
29 of 100
PageID 217
217
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF ANESTHESIOLOGY
2018 In-Training Examination
Personal Performance Report
Name: Corbett, Shannon LaRene Training Program: 150013 ID Number: [REDACTED]
Your performance on the In-Training Examination (ITE) is reported as a scaled score. There are 98 Basic items and 97 Advanced items in this
examination. Also reported are your percent correct scores based on these Basic items and Advanced items respectively. For more information about
your In-Training Examination score and your Percent Correct Scores for Basic items and Advanced items, and to compare your performance with other
residents, refer to the "Guidelines for Interpreting Your Personal Performance Report".
Your Scaled Score is: 23
Your Percent Correct Score for Basic Items is: 59
Your Percent Correct Score for Advanced Items is: 56
To help you evaluate your performance in various content areas measured by the ITE, the number of questions answered correctly for each content
area is listed below. For your reference, also listed below for each content area is the number of correct answers that represents the 50th percentile, the
75th percentile, and the 90th percentile respectively for all examinees at the same training level as you, i.e., NEW, CB, CA1, CA2 or CA3. You can use
this information to assess how your performance compares to all other examinees at the same training level as you.
Category | # of Questions | # Answered Correctly | 50%-ile | 75%-ile | 90%-ile
Basic Sciences | 28 | 17 | 20 | 22 | 23
Clinical
Sciences
|
44
|
22
|
31
|
33
|
36
Organ-based Basic & Clinical Sciences | 66 | 41 | 47 | 51 | 54
Clinical
Subspecialties
|
42
|
21
|
29
|
32
|
34
Special Problems or Issues in Anesthesiology | 15 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
Page 1 of 1
Confidential Peer Review
29
D-000467
Case
1919 Filed
Page 30
30 of 100
PageID218
218
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF ANESTHESIOLOGY
2019 In-Training Examination
Personal Performance Report
Name: Corbett, Shannon LaRene Training Program: 150013 ID Number: [REDACTED]
YourperformanceontheIn-TrainingExamination(ITE)isreportedasascaledscore.Thereare97Basicitemsand98Advanceditemsinthisexamination.AlsoreportedareyourpercentcorrectscoresbasedontheseBasicitemsandAdvanceditemsrespectively.FormoreinformationaboutyourIn-TrainingExaminationscoreandyourPercentCorectScoresforBasicitemsandAdvanceditems,andtocompareyourperformancewithotherresidents,refertothe"GuidelinesforInterpretingYourPersonalPerformanceReport".
37%
Your Scaled Score is: 25
Your Percent Correct Score for Basic Items is: 63
Your Percent Correct Score for Advanced Items is: 54
TohelpyouevaluateyourperformanceinvariouscontentareasmeasuredbytheITE,thenumberofquestionsansweredcorectlyforeachcontentareaislistedbelow.Foryourreference,alsolistedbelowforeachcontentareaisthenumberofcorectanswersthatrepresentsthe50thpercentile,the75thpercentile,andthe90thpercentilerespectivelyforal examine satthesametraininglevelasyou,i.e.,NEW,CB,CA1,CA2orCA3.Youcanusethisinformationtoas es howyourperformancecomparestoal otherexamine satthesametraininglevelasyou.
Category # of Questions # Answered Correctly 50%-ile 75%-ile 90%-ile
Basic
Sciences
Clinical
28
Sciences
16
42
27
22
32
24
25
35
36
Organ-based Basic & Clinical Sciences 67 37 52 55 58
Clinical
Subspecialties
44
24
32
35
37
Special Problems or Issues in Anesthesiology 14 10 11 12 13
Confidential Peer Review Shannon Corbet
Page 1 of 1
30
D-000496
EXHIBIT
D
Case
Document
1919 Filed
Page 31
31 of
PageID219
219
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
of 100
100 PageID
Wasnick, John
From: Varma, Surendra
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 8:25 PM
To: Wasnick, John
Cc: Bates, Jedward; Santos, Alan
Subject: Re: Confidential - Corbett
I concur with you.
SKV
Surendra Varma, MD, DSc(Hon), FAAP, FACE
Grover E Murray Professor,
Executive Associate Dean for GME & Resident Affairs,
Ted Hartman Endowed Chair in Medical Education
University Distinguished Professor & Vice Chair, Pediatrics
TTUHSC School of Medicine
806-743-3012
On Aug 21, 2018, at 8:23 PM, Wasnick, John <John.Wasnick@ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
I wil not al ow her patient care responsibility without clearance from eap. If eap thinks she has everything settled that is ok by me but without clearance from a profes ional in such mat ers I cannot al ow her clinical duties
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2018, at 8:16 PM, Bates, Jedward <Jedward.Bates@ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
Shanoncalledmycellaround5:50,whichIdisregardedasIwassitingdownwiththekids.WhenIdidn'tanswer,shetextedandrequestedthatIcalherbackurgently.Icalherbackshortlyaftersixandwespokeforroughlyanhour.DuetoherownexpressedconcernandstatementsfromDr.English,Idiscussedthecircumstancesleadingtomyownrequesttometearliertoday,aswelastherequestbytheprogram.Belowareafewnotesfromthediscusion.
Facebokposts:First,shestatedthepostsocuredonSaturdayevening.Ihadasumedtheyocuredyesterdayeveningsincetheywereprovidedtoday.Shestatedthattheyexpresedherfelingsatthetime,butherworkSundayandMondayshoulddemonstrateherabilitytofunctionintheclinicalseting.Shediscusedthatanumberofeventsledtoherexpresinghernegativeperspectiveatthetime.Someaspectsincludedtherecentcontactfromherpreviousboyfriendthatshepreviouslyhadarestrainingorderunder.Thishasforcedhertoworktoreestablishtherestrainingorder.Aditionaly,followingtheeventswiththepreviousboyfriend,hercurentboyfrienddisplayedbehaviorand
1
31
D-001485
would be more appropriate based on her clinical schedule.
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 32
32 of 100
PageID220
220
conduct that was reminiscent to her previous experiences. This precipitated the
"fucking over" and "worth a damn" comments in the facebook posts.
Not meeting today: She stated that when I reached out for her to come to
discuss "the transition to PG 2 and preparation for Part I", she was unable
because she had been able to schedule a [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] due to being post-call. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Had she known my request
was in regard to the Facebook posts, she stated that she would have come to
meet today. She had no intention of not meeting but felt Thursday and Friday
She expressed concerns with what was being told to faculty or other residents,
and felt she perceived this as disciplinary. She desired to be able to perform her
clinical duties tomorrow first, then come to visit with me further in the
afternoon. I stated that the effort to connect with her was solely to assess and
ensure her wellbeing. I stated also that I would provide her request to Santos
and Wasnick, but that our concerns were valid based on her difficulties
managing stressors in the past.
I will provide my notes to EAP, but let me know what time you intend to meet
tomorrow morning.
JB
[REDACTED]
2
32
D-001486
Case
1919 Filed
Page 33
33 of 100
PageID221
221
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
APPENDIX 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
SHANNON CORBETT,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
§ Civil Action No.: 5:21-cv-00281-H
vs.
§
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
§
HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER,
§
Defendant.
§
DECLARATION OF ALAN SANTOS, M.D.
STATE OF LOUISIANA §
§
PARISH OF ORLEANS §
I, Alan Santos, M.D. declare the following:
1.MynameisAlanSantosandIamofsoundmind,overtheageofeighte nyears,haveneverbe nconvictedofafelonyorcrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude,amcapableofmakingthisDeclaration,havepersonalknowledgeofthematterscontainedinthisDeclarationandtheyaretrueandcorect.
2. I am the former Program Director for Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center's (T UHSC) Anesthesiology Residency Program (ARP). I served in this role begin ing in November 2016 until my retirement in 2021.
3.AstheProgramDirectorforTUHSC'sARP,mydutiesandresponsibilitiesincluded,butwerenotlimitedto,designing,andconductingtheAnesthesiologyResidencyPrograminafashionconsistentwiththenedsofthecomunity,themisionofTTUHSC,andthemissionoftheprogram;Ihadauthorityandacountabilityfortheoperationoftheprogramandresponsibilitiesthatencompaseveryaspectofpostgraduatemedicaltraining,includingasesinganddocumentingthecompetencyofeachresidentandensuringpatientsafety.
4. Dr. Shannon Corbett began a four-year residency training program at TTUHSC in the Department of Anesthesiology in 2016.
5. As the Program Director, I had the authority and accountability to assess and document the competency of Dr. Corbett as wel as every other resident in the ARP.
6. During my tenure as the Program Director of T UHSC's ARP I became aware of several concerning situations involving Dr. Corbett's competency as an anesthesiology resident. For example, in February of 2018, I was notified of a situation where Dr. Corbet had failed to
33
Case
1919 Filed
Page 34
34 of 100
PageID 222
222
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
take/check a patient's blood pressure timely and the patient had to be woken up and monitored.
In another case, Dr. Corbett had not switched on an inhalation agent for anesthesia. These
errors displayed Dr. Corbett's poor patient care and poor medical decisions and indicated that
she was not functioning as a competent resident with seven to eight months of experience.
7. Later, in December of 2018, I received an evaluation from a physician at Dallas Children's
Hospital, managed by the University of Texas at Southwestern anesthesiology program, who
had overseen Dr. Corbett during a rotation at their medical care facility and expressed serious
concerns about Dr. Corbett's performance, including whether she understood basic concepts
of anesthesiology.
8. Notwithstanding the concerning situations involving patients, I continued to support Dr.
Corbett in her residency, particularly with extra assistance as she attempted to pass the ABA
Basic exam.
9. All residents must pass several exams to become Board Certified, including the ABA Basic
Exam which is a computer-based multiple-choice test used to assess a resident's mastery of
topics.
10. Residents who have completed eighteen months of training are eligible to take the ABA Basic
Exam, which is typically offered in June and November each year.
11. According to the ABA, a resident who fails the Basic Exam for the first time can retake the
exam at the next opportunity, however a resident who fails the ABA Basic Exam for the second
time is automatically marked as "unsatisfactory" for the reporting period by the ABA.
12. The TTUHSC residency program has no authority to change the "unsatisfactory" marking.
13. A resident cannot graduate from the residency training program without passing the ABA
Basic Exam.
14. Successful passage of the ABA Basic Exam is a requirement for advancement in the
anesthesiology education continuum as failure reflects a deficit in essential medical knowledge
required for an anesthesiologist.
15. Prior to Dr. Corbett's four unsuccessful attempts to pass the ABA Basic Exam, she was allowed
to take voluntary leave to have additional time to dedicate to studying. Despite having
additional time to study and the opportunity to take the exam four times, Dr. Corbett never
passed the ABA Basic Exam. True and correct copies of the ABA Basic Exam score reports
are attached as Exhibit A.
16. After failing the exam on her first two attempts, Dr. Corbett was informed that if she did not
pass the exam on her third attempt, she would be recommended for dismissal from the
residency program. On February 1, 2019, Dr. Corbett signed an Amendment to the 2018-2019
GME Program Agreement acknowledging her understanding of the consequences of failing
the ABA Basic Exam a third time. A true and correct copy of the signed amendment to Dr.
Corbett's 2018-2019 GME Program Agreement is attached as Exhibit B.
17. In March of 2019, I offered to help Dr. Corbett study for the upcoming July 2019 exam and
although she accepted my offer she failed to schedule a time to meet with me..
18. Dr. Corbett took and failed the ABA Basic Exam in June 2019. See Exhibit A at D-001744.
19. Despite the amended GME Agreement which stated that Dr. Corbett would be dismissed from
the residency program if she failed the ABA Basic Exam a third time, myself, Dr. John
Wasnick, Chair of the Anesthesiology Department, and the Clinical Competence Committee
advocated for Dr. Corbett and decided to allow her to continue in the residency program and
prepare to take the ABA Basic Exam for the fourth time.
20. I created, funded, and placed Dr. Corbett in a paid 6-month research position without any
2
34
34
25. On December 10, 2019, Dr. Corbett received notice of the recommendation for dismissal from
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document19
19 Filed
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22
Case
Page
Page 35
35 of
of 100
PageID
PageID 223
223
clinical duties or on-call hours. We also provided Dr. Corbett with a mentor to help her with
a study plan to increase her chance for success on this fourth attempt to pass the exam.
21. The terms and expectations for Dr. Corbett·s new position and continuation in the residency
program are set forth in detail in the signed July 24, 2019 Confidential Peer Review of which
a true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit C.
22. Once again, Dr. Corbett·s GME Program Agreement was amended to reflect her new status in
the residency program and the consequences if she failed the ABA Basic Exam a fourth time.
A true and correct copy of the signed amendment to Dr. Corbett·s 2019-2020 GME Program
Agreement is attached as Exhibit D.
23. Despite the extension on her GME Program Agreement, the additional mentoring, and the
additional paid time she received to devote to studying for the ABA Basic Exam, TTUHSC
was notified that Dr. Corbett had again failed the exam.
24. Based on that information and the terms and conditions of Dr. Corbett·s Amended GME
Program Agreement, Dr. Wasnick and I recommended that Dr. Corbett be dismissed from
TTUHSC·s Anesthesiology Residency Program.
the TTUHSC ARP for deficiency in medical knowledge based on her repeated failure to pass
the ABA Basic Exam. A true and correct copy of the Confidential Peer Review containing the
Notice of Recommendation for Dismissal is attached as Exhibit E.
26. Dr. Corbett was thereafter dismissed from the TTUHSC Anesthesiology Residency Program
because passing the ABA Basic Exam is a requirement for advancement in the residency
program and Dr. Corbett was unable to pass the exam. A true and correct copy of the May 11,
2020 Dismissal Letter attached as Exhibit F.
27. I am aware of Shannon Corbett·s assertion that she was dismissed from TTUHSC·s
Anesthesiology Residency Program (·ARP·) because of her gender.
28. Any allegation that Dr. Corbett was dismissed from TTUHSC·s ARP because of her gender or
in retaliation for her internal administrative complaint is unsupported by the facts.
29. TTUHSC·s decision to dismiss Dr. Corbett from the residency program was made in good
faith and based solely on her failure to meet the ABA·s qualification requirements to continue
in the Residency Program, consistent with TTUHSC procedure. All residents, regardless of
gender, are required to pass before they can be promoted or graduate from residency training.
30. Specifically, Dr. Corbett was dismissed from TTUHSC·s Anesthesiology Residency Program
because of her deficiency in medical knowledge demonstrated by her repeated failure to pass
the American Board of Anesthesiologists Basic Exam despite being given four opportunities
to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed on the 7 day of November, 2022.
Alan Santos, M.D.
3
35
EXHIBIT A
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
CONFIDENTIAL
Filed 11/08/22
Page 36 of 100
Document 19
PageID 224
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF ANESTHESIOLOGY
2018 June BASIC Examination
SCORE REPORT OF CANDIDATES NOT MEETING PASSING STANDARD
Program: 150013
Below are your residents who failed to meet the passing standard established by the Board. The passing
standard is a scaled score of 185.
ID NUMBER
EXAMINEE NAME
SCALE SCORE
PERCENTILE RANK
66
1%
Corbett, Shannon LaRene
COUNT = 1
Page 1 of 1
36
D-001743
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
CONFIDENTIAL
Filed 11/08/22
Page 37 of 100
Document 19
PageID 225
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF ANESTHESIOLOGY
2018 November BASIC Examination
SCORE REPORT OF CANDIDATES NOT MEETING PASSING STANDARD
Program: 150013
Below are your residents who failed to meet the passing standard established by the Board. The passing
standard is a scaled score of 185.
ID NUMBER
EXAMINEE NAME
Corbett, Shannon LaRene
SCALED SCORE
PERCENTILE RANK
119
1%
COUNT = 1
37
Page 1 of 1
D-001736
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
CONFIDENTIAL
Filed 11/08/22
Page 38 of 100
Document 19
PageID 226
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF ANESTHESIOLOGY
2019 June BASIC Examination
SCORE REPORT OF CANDIDATES NOT MEETING PASSING STANDARD
Program: 150013
Below are your residents who failed to meet the passing standard established by the Board. The passing
standard is a scaled score of 185.
ID NUMBER
EXAMINEE NAME
SCALE SCORE
PERCENTILE RANK
160
3%
Corbett, Shannon LaRene
COUNT = 1
Page 1 of 1
38
D-001744
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
CONFIDENTIAL
Filed 11/08/22
Page 39 of 100
Document 19
PageID 227
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF ANESTHESIOLOGY
2019 November BASIC Examination
SCORE REPORT OF CANDIDATES NOT MEETING PASSING STANDARD
Program: 150013
Below are your residents who failed to meet the passing standard established by the Board. The passing
standard is a scaled score of 185.
ID NUMBER
EXAMINEE NAME
Corbett, Shannon LaRene
SCALED SCORE
PERCENTILE RANK
155
2%
COUNT = 1
39
Page 1 of 1
D-001738
Case
5:22-cv-00281-C
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
5:21-cv-00281-H
1919 Filed
Page 40
40 of 100
PageID 228
228
EXHIBIT
B Document
Graduate Medical Education Program Agreement
Amendment
This document constitutes an amendment to the 2018-2019 Graduate Medical Education Program
Agreement between Shannon Corbett, M.D. and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
(TTUHSC). By signing below, you agree that you will comply at all times with the following conditions
and requirements, as may be amended by the Office of GME and/or Program Director of Anesthesiology
Residency. (The numbering of the conditions and requirements in no way represents an order of importance in the content.)
Requirements:
(1) Your residency training position with TTUHSC is contingent on your maintaining: a physician-intraining permit from the Texas Medical Board; compliance with ACGME common and
Anesthesiology specific requirements; Anesthesiology Residency expectations; and applicable
(2) You understand that you must be able to perform the essential functions of your job with or
without a reasonable accommodation.
(3) You understand and acknowledge that the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) requires
passage
the ABA
Basic
Exam,
the first of three staged exams for ABA Board Certification, prior
hospital of
and
medical
staff
privileges.
to promotion to the CA-3 (PGY 4) year. To date, you have failed two attempts of the ABA Basic
Exam and received an "Unsatisfactory" report to ABA for the July-December 2018 reporting
period.
(4) You understand and acknowledge that a third failed attempt on the ABA Basic Exam will
demonstrate a significant deficiency in medical knowledge and will result in a recommendation for
dismissal from the program. Should the results of the June 2019 ABA Basic Exam not be received
by the current expiration date of your 2018-2019 Graduate Medical Education Program Agreement,
you will be extended at your current CA-2 (PGY 3) level until receipt.
(5) You understand and acknowledge that successful passage of the ABA Basic Exam does not
guarantee promotion to CA-3 (PGY 4) level. Status in the program is determined by the Clinical
Competency Committee through assessment across all areas of competency, and may result in
recommendation of extension of training.
(6) Should you fail to comply with the conditions and requirements outlined herein, you will be
removed from patient care immediately. In addition, non-compliance will require that all
appropriate entities, including the Texas Medical Board, be notified.
Shannon Corbett
2-1-19
Shannon Corbett, MD
DATE
PGY III, Anesthesiology Resident
Alan Santos
1/25/19
DATE
Alan Santos, MD
Program Director, Anesthesiology Residency
Confidential Peer Review
40
D-000495
Dr. Corbett:
Case
1919 Filed
Page41
41 of 100
PageID229
229
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
EXHIBIT C Corbett Notice
CONFIDENTIAL PEER REVIEW
July 24, 2019
Shannon Corbett, MD
Department of Anesthesiology, PGY2
TTUHSC School of Medicine
Hand Delivered
Re: Notice of Change of Status and Amendment
The Clinical Competence Committee of the Anesthesiology Residency Program of Texas Tech
University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) has discussed your request to continue in the
residency program despite a third failed attempt on the ABA Basic Exam and the 2018-2019
GME Agreement Amendment that dictates recommendation for dismissal should occur for a
third failed attempt of the exam.
The faculty have recognized that throughout your training in the program, you have struggled
to overcome personal conflicts impacting your focus on residency activities and passage of
standardized exams, including both USMLE Step III and the ABA Basic Exam. The program has
afforded numerous opportunities to improve your study habits, including time away from the
program and individual review with faculty, but have yet to observe significant improvement in
your demonstration of medical knowledge, which is essential to the practice of Anesthesiology.
Despite this, the faculty truly want you to succeed and believe you may be able to pass the ABA
Basic Exam if you utilize TTUHSC SOM's resources to improve your study habits and test taking
skills.
It is the recommendation of the Anesthesiology residency that you be placed under a resident
research status, still considered a resident for ACGME/ABA reporting and under the direction of
the program, for the period of time leading to the next offering of the ABA Basic Exam in
November 2019. Under ABA policies, you will not receive any credit for this research
experience, but must have a specific, permanent scholarly "work product" created for
completion during the period of the research status, or continued upon return to clinical
training. Effective immediately, all clinical privileges will be withheld until receipt of results
from the November 2019 ABA Basic Exam. During this period, you will be expected to report to
TTUHSC daily, attend all non-clinical residency activities, such as didactics, journal club, and
simulation activities, and meet with an assigned faculty mentor weekly to review progress on
your scholarly project. Under this status, you will have significant time to study for the ABA
Basic Exam.
In addition to the change in status, you will be provided access to TTUHSC SOM resources for
your improvement of study habits and test taking. It is also strongly recommended that you
Confidential Peer Review
41
D-000511
Corbett Notice
Page 4 of 4
Case
1919 Filed
Page 42
42 of
of 100
PageID230
230
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Date
also consider working with the Counseling Center at TTUHSC, or an external counselor, to
address any personal issues or stressors that may be impacting your preparation for the exam.
Should you pass the November 2019 ABA Basic Exam, you will be allowed to reenter clinical
training with a recommendation of 18 months extension to your CA-2 (PG 3) level. Failure to
pass the ABA Basic Exam on this fourth attempt will result in immediate removal from the
residency and recommendation for dismissal in accordance with TTUHSC House Staff Policies
and Procedures. Subsequent reporting of the dismissal will be required to ACGME, ABA and
TMB, as required by their policies.
A new 2019-2020 GME Agreement will be provided, along with an amendment dictating the
terms described above, by the GME Office. The term of the agreement will be for the
remaining time in this six month ABA reporting period.
A copy of this letter will be placed in your official personnel file. You are requested to sign at the
end, to signify that you have received a copy of this letter.
7/24/2019
Alan Santos MD, Program Director
Date
7/24/2019
John Wasnick, MD, Department Chair
Receipt of Letter
I acknowledge receipt of this letter. I understand that a copy of this letter will be placed in my
official personnel file. I also understand that I have the right to prepare a written response that
will be attached to the letter in my file.
7-26-19
Shannon Corbett, MD
Date
Confidential Peer Review
42
D-000512
Case
5:21-cv-00281-H
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
5:21-cv-00281-H
1919 Filed
Page 43
43 of 100
PageID 231
231
EXHIBIT
DDocument
Graduate Medical Education Program Agreement
Amendment
This document constitutes an amendment to the 2019-2020 Graduate Medical Education Program
Agreement between Shannon Corbett, M.D. and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
(TTUHSC). By signing below, you agree that you will comply at all times with the following conditions
and requirements, as may be amended by the Office of GME and/or Program Director of Anesthesiology
Residency. (The numbering of the conditions and requirements in no way represents an order of importance in the content.)
Requirements:
(1) Your residency training position with TTUHSC is contingent on your maintaining: a physician-intraining permit from the Texas Medical Board; compliance with ACGME common and
Anesthesiology specific requirements; Anesthesiology Residency expectations; and applicable
hospital and medical staff privileges.
(2) You understand that you must be able to perform the essential functions of your job with or
without a reasonable accommodation.
(3) You understand and acknowledge that the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) requires
passage of the ABA Basic Exam, the first of three staged exams for ABA Board Certification, prior
to promotion to the CA-3 (PGY 4) year. To date, you have failed three attempts of the ABA Basic
Exam and received an "Unsatisfactory" report to ABA for two consecutive six-month reporting
periods.
(4) You understand and acknowledge that the TTUHSC Anesthesia Faculty have afforded a fourth
and final attempt to pass the ABA basic Exam. During the period leading up to the test date in
November 2019, you will serve as a resident performing research, with an assigned faculty mentor,
as well as attend all non-clinical residency activities, but all clinical privileges are withheld. No credit
will be awarded for this six month ABA reporting period.
(5) You understand and acknowledge that a fourth failed attempt on the ABA Basic Exam will
demonstrate a significant deficiency in medical knowledge and will result in an immediate
recommendation for dismissal from the program.
(6) You understand and acknowledge that successful passage of the ABA Basic Exam does
not guarantee promotion to CA-3 (PGY 4) level. Status in the program is determined by
the Clinical Competency Committee through assessment across all areas of competency.
In alignment with the 2019 ABA Policy Book, a passing result on the November 2019 ABA Basic
Exam will allow reentry into the clinical training program, but require an extension of the CA-2
(PGY 3) level of at least 18 months.
(7) Should you fail to comply with the conditions and requirements outlined herein, you will be
removed from patient care immediately. In addition, non-compliance will require that all
appropriate entities, including the Texas Medical Board, be notified.
Signature page to follow
Confidential Peer Review
Resident initial here for each page stating you have read and understand
43
D-000508
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 44
44 of 100
PageID232
232
By signing below, you agree that you will comply at all times with the following conditions and
requirements, as may be amended by the Office of GME and/or Program Director of Anesthesiology
Residency.
Shannon Corbett
7-26-19
Shannon Corbett, MD
DATE
PGY III, Anesthesiology Resident
Alan Santos
7/26/19
Alan Santos, MD
DATE
Program Director, Anesthesiology Residency
Confidential Peer Review
Resident initial here for each page stating you have read and understand
44
D-000509
Case
1919 Filed
Page 45
45 of
PageID233
233
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
of 100
100 PageID
EXHIBIT
E
Corbett
Notice
CONFIDENTIAL PEER REVIEW
December 10, 2019
Shannon Corbett, MD
Department of Anesthesiology, PGY2
TTUHSC School of Medicine
Hand Delivered
Re: Notice of Recommendation for Dismissal
Dr. Corbett:
The TTUHSC Anesthesia Residency Program was provided the results of the American Board of
Anesthesiology (ABA) November Basic Examination on Friday, December 6, 2019. The results
provided documented that you failed to meet the passing standard established by the Board. In
accordance with the signed 2019-2020 Graduate Medical Education Program Agreement
Amendment and Notice of Change of Status and Amendment letter dated July 24, 2019, this
letter serves as notice that the program faculty is recommending you be dismissed as a resident
for deficiency in medical knowledge.
Effective immediately, you are removed from all residency duties, including work pertaining to
the resident research status assignment, pending a final decision by Steven Berk, MD, Dean.
Should Dr. Berk accept the recommendation, the program would be required to report the final
action to ACGME, ABA and Texas Medical Board, as required by their policies.
You may appeal the recommendation for dismissal within five (5) business days of receipt of this
letter by submitting in writing a notice of appeal to Surendra Varma, MD, Executive Associate
Dean for GME and Resident Affairs and Chair of the Lubbock Campus GMEC (see HSP&Ps
07.07.05).
Please contact the residency coordinator, Lisa Sechrist, by phone in advance of entering any of
the Department of Anesthesiology offices. Should you have any questions regarding this action
or your rights and responsibilities, please direct those questions to J.Edward Bates, DIO.
Sincerely,
12/10/19
Alan Santos MD, Program Director
Date
John Wasnick MD, Chairman
Date
12/16/19
xc Steve Berk, MD, Executive Vice President, Dean TTUHSC SOM
Surendra Varma, MD, Executive Associate Dean for GME and Resident Affairs
J.Edward Bates, Managing Director for GME and DIO
Confidential Peer Review
45
D-000515
Case
1919 Filed
Page 46
46 of 100
PageID234
234
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Corbett Notice
Acknowledgement of Delivery
This letter was hand-delivered to Shannon Corbett, MD, on the date as indicated.
12-10-19
Date
Shannon Corbett, MD
Enclosures: 2019-2020 Graduate Medical Education Program Agreement Amendment
Notice of Change of Status and Amendment
Disciplinary Action Form
Confidential Peer Review
46
D-000516
dismissed from the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) School of Medicine
Case
5:21-cv-00281-H
1919 Filed
Page 47
47 of 100
PageID235
235
Case
5:21-cv-00287-H
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
EXHIBIT
F Document
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER
School of Medicine
Steven L. Berk, MD
Dean, School of Medicine
May 11, 2020
Shannon Corbett, MD
Sent via Regular and Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
PGY 3, Anesthesiology Resident
[REDACTED]
and Email Attachment at
Lubbock, TX 79414
shannon.corbett@ttuhsc.edu
RE: Recommendation for Dismissal, Anesthesiology Residency Program
Dear Dr. Corbett-
The Program Director of the Anesthesiology residency program has recommended that you be
residency training program.
After reviewing all documentation, I believe that you have been afforded due process as called for
under the TTUHSC School of Medicine House Staff Policies and Procedures. It is my determination
that the recommendation for dismissal be upheld, which takes effect today, May 11, 2020.
Please contact the GME Office to return all property belonging to TTUHSC including, but not limited
to, pager, badges, keys, any electronic devices, etc.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Berk, MD
Executive Vice President
Dean
cc: Alan Santos, MD, Anesthesiology Residency Program Director
Surendra Varma, MD, Executive Associate Dean for GME and Resident Affairs
J.Edward Bates, TTUHSC GME DIO
3601 4th Street STOP 6207 | Lubbock, Texas 79430-6207 | O- 806.743.3000 F:
47
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 48
48 of
of 100
PageID236
236
APPENDIX 4
APPENDIX 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
SHANNON CORBETT,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
Civil Action No.: 5:21-cv-00281-H
§
vs.
§
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
§
HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER,
§
Defendant.
§
DECLARATION OF DAWN PAYNE
STATE OF TEXAS
§
§
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK
§
I, Dawn Payne, declare the following:
1. My name is Dawn Payne and I am of sound mind, over the age of eighteen years, have never
been convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, am capable of making this
Declaration, have personal knowledge of the matters contained in this Declaration and they are
true and correct.
2. I am currently the Assistant Vice Chancellor and Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity
for Texas Tech University System (TTUS). I have served in this role since July 2021 and have
worked in the Office of Equal Opportunity since April of 2011.
3. My duties and responsibilities include investigating complaints of discrimination and
harassment, monitoring compliance with equal opportunity laws and regulations, and
maintaining the institutions' Affirmative Action Program.
4. I conducted the investigation of Dr. Shannon Corbett's gender discrimination complaint
received by the Texas Tech University System Office of Equal Opportunity ("EO") on January
23, 2020. In her complaint, Dr. Shannon Corbett alleged that Dr. Alan Santos, Program
Director, treated her worse than her male colleagues because she is female. She alleged that
he harassed her and created a hostile work environment in an attempt to get her out of the
residency program.
5. At the conclusion of my investigation, I authored a Confidential Memorandum which includes
a detailed report of the investigation and my findings and conclusions. A true and correct copy
of the Confidential Memorandum is attached as Exhibit A.
6. I interviewed twenty-five people, including Dr. Corbett and Dr. Santos. I spoke with thirteen
48
48
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Case
1919 Filed
Page 49
49 of 100
PageID237
237
females: all six female faculty members in the Department of Anesthesiology, four female
residents/former residents, and three other females including a faculty member, hospital
administrator, and residency program coordinator. I reviewed the Anesthesiology Residency
Program requirements, documents contained in Dr. Corbett·s residency program record, notes
taken during meetings with the Office of Graduate Medical Education and the residency
program coordinator, and other information and documents obtained during the course of the
investigation, including Dr. Corbett·s journal notes. See Exhibit A.
7. After evaluating the information gathered during the investigation, I found no evidence to
support Dr. Corbett·s allegations of discrimination or harassment based on gender or her claims
that Dr. Santos· conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive that it created an intimidating,
hostile, and offensive working and educational environment based on her sex. See Exhibit A
at pp. 26-29.
8. I did not find that Dr. Corbett was given notice of dismissal from the residency program based
on any discriminatory reason but solely based on her inability to pass a required board exam
even though she was given multiple opportunities. Id.
9. I found that Dr. Santos treated Dr. Corbett more favorably than her colleagues in the residency
program by extending her employment and training and allowing her to take the American
Board of Anesthesiology (·ABA·) Basic Exam a third and fourth time. Id.
10. I found that Dr. Santos tried to put Dr. Corbett in the best position to succeed and created and
funded a research position, so that Dr. Corbett could have ample time to study without having
to fulfill clinical duties. Id.
11. I found that several individuals in the department who are part of the recruiting process agreed
that Dr. Santos has consistently tried to recruit more women to the residency program. Id.
12. I am aware of Dr. Corbett·s assertion that she was dismissed from TTUHSC·s Anesthesiology
Residency Program (·ARP·) because of her gender.
13. Any allegation that Dr. Corbett was dismissed from TTUHSC·s ARP because of her gender is
not supported by the facts. See Exhibit A.
14. TTUHSC·s decision to dismiss Dr. Corbett was made in good faith and based solely on her
failure to meet the qualification requirements to continue in the Residency Program, consistent
with TTUHSC procedure. Specifically, Dr. Corbett was dismissed from TTUHSC·s
Anesthesiology Residency Program because of her repeated failure to pass the American Board
of Anesthesiologists Basic Exam despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. See
Exhibit A at p. 26.
My name is Dawn Payne, and I am an employee of the Texas Tech University System. I am
executing this declaration as part of my assigned duties and responsibilities. I declare under
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed on November 7, 2022.
Dawn Payne
Dawn Payne
2
49
49
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
EXHIBIT A
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 50 of 100
PageID 238
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Office of Equal Opportunity
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
April 15, 2020
TO:
Dr. Steven Berk, Dean, School of Medicine
Dr. John Wasnick, Chair, Department of Anesthesiology
FROM:
Dawn R. Payne, Managing Director – Office of Equal Opportunity
SUBJECT: Complaint of Gender Discrimination
______________________________________________________________________________
Background
Shannon Corbett, M.D. began the four-year residency training program at TTUHSC in the
Department of Anesthesiology in 2016. The residency program includes broad-based clinical
training during the first year where residents develop basic anesthesia skills followed by three
clinical anesthesia (CA) or post graduate years (PGY) during which residents receive training
through various subspecialty rotations.
Throughout the education program, residents must meet certain performance requirements and
clinical competency standards as set forth in the curriculum and pursuant to accreditation
standards under the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). More
specifically, residents must develop and master competencies in the six key areas of patient care,
medical knowledge, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication
skills, professionalism, and systems-based practice. Additionally, residents must pass medical
licensure exams including all three steps of the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE)
and the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) Basic Exam within certain deadlines and
prior to advancing to the next post graduate year (PGY) of the program. The Office of Graduate
Medical Education (GME) is responsible for overseeing the various residency and fellowship
programs at TTUHSC by providing guidance for and supervision of the residents during their
program and ensuring that they meet program requirements.
Box 41073 | Lubbock, Texas 79409-1073 | 806.742.3627
An EEO/AA/Vet/Disability Employer
50
D-000106
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 51 of 100
PageID 239
Final Report – Page 2
Because Dr. Corbett failed the ABA Basic Exam after multiple attempts, she was given notice on
December 10, 2019 that she was being dismissed as a resident from the program for deficiency
in medical knowledge. Subsequently, Dr. Corbett filed an appeal of the recommendation of her
dismissal on December 17, 2019 claiming that she had been discriminated against based on her
gender during her residency program. Dr. Corbett was advised to and did file a complaint with
the TTUS Office of Equal Opportunity which is the office which investigates complaints of
gender discrimination involving TTUHSC employees, and as a result, the appeals process related
to her dismissal from the program has been put on hold pending the completion of this
investigation.
Complaint
The complaint form completed by Dr. Corbett (dated January 10, 2020) was received by the
Office of Equal Opportunity (EO) on January 23, 2020. Dr. Corbett complained that Dr. Alan
Santos, Program Director, treated her worse than her male colleagues because she is female. She
alleged that he harassed her and created a hostile work environment in an attempt to get her (a
woman) out of the program, She claimed on numerous occasions he stated that he wanted
women out of the program, that he never addressed her as “doctor” but instead called her
“missy,” that he cursed at her, threatened to kill her, and was hostile toward her. She further
claimed that Dr. Santos’ verbal conduct created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working
and educational environment.
Investigation
The investigation of this matter was conducted by the Office of Equal Opportunity (Dawn
Payne), hereinafter referred to as Investigator. Twenty-five people were interviewed in
connection with this investigation, including both Dr. Corbett, Dr. Santos, and numerous
witnesses. Investigator interviewed all of the individuals listed as witnesses by both Dr. Corbett
and Dr. Santos. Investigator spoke with thirteen females: all six female faculty members in the
Department of Anesthesiology, four female residents who are currently or were previously part
of the residency program, and three other females including a faculty member, hospital
administrator, and residency program coordinator. Further, we reviewed the Anesthesiology
Residency Program requirements, documents contained in Dr. Corbett’s residency program
record, notes taken during meetings with the Office of GME and the residency program
coordinator, and other information and documents obtained during the course of the
investigation. Dr. Corbett also provided notes she had taken in a journal during the previous
years of her residency as well as lab results from independent testing she had performed on her
own accord on various occasions.
Interview of Dr. Shannon Corbett
Dr. Corbett was interviewed by Investigator on January 30, 2020. She said she was notified by
Dr. Santos on December 10, 2019 that her contract was being terminated because she had failed
the Basic Exam. At that time, he told her she was not smart enough for anesthesiology and
needed to pick another specialty. Dr. Corbett has filed an appeal of her termination from the
program but said the appeals process is on hold pending this investigation. She told Investigator
that the ABA Basic Exam is taken between the second and third year of residency. She took the
51
D-000107
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 52 of 100
PageID 240
Final Report – Page 3
exam the first time in November 2018 but failed the exam. She retook the exam in November
2019 and failed the exam again. Dr. Corbett told Investigator she was unaware of any limit to
the number of times she could take the exam and said usually remediation is offered through the
residency program in which you wait six-months and retake the exam.
Investigator asked Dr. Corbett about her allegations of gender discrimination. She said
Dr. Santos spoke to the other residents using their names preceded by doctor. However, he only
called her Dr. Corbett one or two times but instead referred to her as “missy,” would often snap
his fingers to get her attention, and would scowl at her. When asked if anyone else observed this
behavior or heard Dr. Santos use the phrase missy, she said others might have been around, but
she was not sure if anyone heard it. She suggested one resident (Resident 2 below) who might
have heard this, and another resident (Resident 1 below) who might have experienced similar
poor treatment from Dr. Santos based on gender.
Dr. Corbett also claimed that Dr. Santos said she was a “problem child,” called her “stupid,” and
told her she was “too dumb to pass the boards.” She further stated that Dr. Santos said to her that
“women don’t belong in medicine.” The Investigator asked Dr. Corbett where these comments
were made and in what context. She said the comments were made over the course of her
residency and occurred in various places such as the anesthesia conference room, in the
operating room (OR), in the hallway. A lot of times he would single her out during Friday
lecture series. According to Dr. Corbett, it was during the lecture series that he told her she was
too stupid to pass the boards and that she would make his pass rate numbers look bad. She never
heard him tell the male residents they were stupid.
However, Dr. Corbett alleged that she heard him sexually harass other males. She claimed she
overheard Dr. Santos tell a male resident (Resident 8 below) that he needed to wear tighter pants
because he had a big package and wanted to see it. Further, Dr. Corbett said she heard him tell
another male resident (Resident 9 below) that he had a really nice ass and he that wanted to see it
in Wranglers, so he could slap it. She said she told both residents to report the comments, but
neither wanted to complain about Dr. Santos.
Dr. Corbett observed Dr. Santos mistreat another female resident (Resident 1 below) a few times
during Friday lecture series. This former resident also told Dr. Corbett that she was treated
poorly by Dr. Santos. The only other female currently in the residency program is a first-year
intern. Dr. Corbett has talked to this intern about Dr. Santos. She told her to watch her back and
that she hoped she was treated better than Dr. Corbett had been treated.
On one occasion approximately one to two years ago, she was sitting in Friday lecture when
Dr. Santos asked her a question. She said she did not answer the question to his satisfaction, and
he responded, “What the fuck. Have you ever read the fucking book? Now I’m going to have to
kill you.” When asked if she was afraid that he would kill her, she responded that while she was
not fearful he would kill her, the comment made her feel bad and was not an isolated incident
after years of harassment by him. Dr. Corbett denied ever hearing such a phrase as a line in
movies. She did not take the comment to be an inappropriate joke.
During her second year in the residency program (approximately 2017), Dr. Corbett was
performing her first arterial line and was waiting for someone to supervise her. She said
52
D-000108
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 53 of 100
PageID 241
Final Report – Page 4
Dr. Santos arrived in the OR and said, “What the fuck. They called me out of my office for you,”
and then pushed her out of the way and said, “What the fuck. Let me just fucking do it.” She
claimed he also said she was too stupid and was never going to be a good fucking clinician.
According to Dr. Corbett, the nurse in the OR told Dr. Santos he was being abusive, and she was
not going to allow that behavior in her OR. Another male nurse asked her if she was okay after
this occurred and told her that was the most unprofessional behavior he had ever seen.
Dr. Corbett described another occasion when a neurosurgeon was being a jerk and throwing a fit.
She asked the physician if there was anything she could do to help. Shortly after, Dr. Santos
came into the OR and screamed at her “well this is becoming a pattern with you.” After that, she
said Dr. Santos also asked her if she was on drugs or drunk and said he was going to make her
take a test but never did. Dr. Corbett told him she was not drunk or on drugs. She told the
Investigator she went on her own and took a drug test at an independent lab and then asked him
if he wanted to see the test results and apologize to her. Dr. Corbett said his response was that he
did not apologize to women.
Additionally, Dr. Corbett claimed that she was accused on multiple occasions of being drunk or
on drugs by Dr. Santos, Dr. John Wasnick, and Dr. Robert Johnston. She told the Investigator
that she had gone to an independent lab approximately ten times to get tested at her own expense
as a result of the accusations against her. She provided Investigator with results from those tests.
She was afraid they were going to try to use these accusations as a way of kicking her out of the
program. She said she was sent to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) about two years ago
for possible substance abuse issues.
On the first day she met Dr. Santos in approximately November or December of 2016,
Dr. Corbett claimed he said to her that he wanted women out of the program and told her she
didn’t belong there and was not smart enough. She does not know if anyone heard these
comments, but she reported the remarks to the Office of GME a couple of days later. The
Designated Institutional Official (DIO) in GME told her it was a joke, and he would speak to
Dr. Santos about the behavior.
Dr. Corbett said she also complained to Dr. Wasnick sometime in both 2016 and 2017 that
Dr. Santos was creating a hostile environment and treating her unfairly based on her gender.
According to Dr. Corbett, Dr. Wasnick laughed and said Dr. Santos joked sometimes and that he
was from New York and that’s how people from New York acted. He told her she was being too
sensitive and did not offer any resolution. Dr. Corbett told Investigator that Dr. Wasnick and
Dr Santos are good friends and take extended vacations together. After that, she started
reporting her concerns to GME.
She went to GME to complain about the way Dr. Santos treated her on several occasions. She
was told she was the only one who complained. Dr. Corbett said the chief resident at the time
(Resident 2 below) also went to GME to complain about Dr. Santos on her behalf. This was
about two years ago after she had shared with Resident 2 how she was being treated, that she
wanted to transfer out of the program, and that she was mentally not in a good place. She told
Investigator that Resident 2 spoke with GME and told the DIO that Dr. Corbett was being treated
unfairly and differently by Dr. Santos because she was a woman.
53
D-000109
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 54 of 100
PageID 242
Final Report – Page 5
Dr. Corbett also thought her conversations with GME were confidential. However, she said
Dr. Santos would call her into his office and say he heard she had complained about him. As a
result, Dr. Corbett alleged that Dr. Santos retaliated against her by assigning her to cases which
did not allow her to meet case specific program requirements or by pulling her out of the OR to
do administrative work so she did not accrue the required OR hours.
More specifically, Dr. Corbett said she has not been allowed in the OR since July 2019 because
Dr. Santos said she was not up to par because she had not passed the Anesthesia Basic Exam in
2018. Dr. Corbett told Investigator that this exam has nothing to do with clinical skills. Further,
Dr. Santos made her sign a paper which said she would not go in the OR and would not
participate in patient care until after December 2019 at which time her status would be
reevaluated. Dr. Corbett told Investigator that when she told Dr. Santos she wanted to talk to a
lawyer before signing the paper, he said, “If you want to talk to a mother fucking lawyer, I’m
done here. I’ll terminate you today,” so she signed the paper.
Dr. Corbett said all she wanted was to transfer from the program especially if Dr. Santos did not
want her or women in the program. She said it would have been easier for him to have released
her and thinks waiting so long to terminate her was calculated on Dr. Santos’ part. Now it will
be more difficult for her to find another job because she is in her last year of residency and has
not been in the OR for more than six months.
Dr. Corbett sent Investigator two follow-up emails regarding her allegations of gender
discrimination by Dr. Santos. In an email sent to Investigator on February 12, 2020, she claimed
that a nurse at University Medical Center (UMC) sent her a text one night after he had been
drinking that said “wanna fuck.” Dr. Corbett said when she reported the behavior to Dr. Santos,
his exact response was “you [sic] a resident and he is a nurse, he out ranks you and can do
whatever he wants. Residents have no power here so I suggest you just leave it alone and
continue to go about your business.”
Additionally, in an email sent to Investigator on March 18, 2020, Dr. Corbett claimed she was
treated differently than other residents because other residents were allowed to study in the OR
as long as the patient was stable, but she was never allowed to do this, and on the few occasions
when she tried, she was “verbally cussed out and was accused of doing drugs and not paying
attention.” She said she asked another resident (Resident 10 below) how he was so successful on
his exams, and he told her to maximize her time and to study in the OR. According to
Dr. Corbett, Resident 10 was a little shocked when she told him she was not allowed to study in
the OR.
Interview of Residents
Investigator interviewed ten individuals, including both females and males, who are current or
former residents (hereinafter referred to as Resident) in the program. Resident 1 (female) said
that Dr. Corbett shared with her that she felt singled out and treated terribly by Dr. Santos.
Dr. Corbett was petrified of him and felt his treatment of her was unfair and cruel as he berated
her in front of her peers. Investigator asked Resident 1 if Dr. Corbett complained that this
behavior was because she was a woman, Resident 1 responded that Dr. Corbett did not
specifically say it was based on gender adding that a lot of the residents, including herself, felt
54
D-000110
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 55 of 100
PageID 243
Final Report – Page 6
like he had favorites and everyone else was treated like “crap.” Resident 1 told Investigator that
Dr. Santos was mean, curt, and unfair to her (Resident 1). She cannot say it was gender or if he
just did not like her because there were other female residents that he did not treat this way, and
other male residents that were also treated badly (she specifically mentioned Resident 5).
Resident 1 said everyone talked about how horrible and mean Dr. Santos was and this was
noticed by both females and males. It was not just women who were affected by the way he
treated people. Resident 1 never heard any gender-based comments from Dr. Santos, and he did
not call her missy. Further, when asked about whether Dr. Santos cursed at or around her,
Resident 1 told Investigator that “he definitely cursed.” She noted that he was not nice to a lot of
them and treated more than half of them poorly.
Resident 2 (male) also heard numerous complaints from Dr. Corbett about Dr. Santos although
he cannot remember the details other than she thought Dr. Santos was hard on her. Resident 2
said Dr. Santos is “old school” and “pretty hard on everyone.” He demands you work hard and
demands that you know what you are doing which makes you a better doctor. Resident 2 said
Dr. Santos was hard on him, was hard on Dr. Corbett, and was hard on others. He thought
Dr. Santos was “pretty fair” but “tough” on Dr. Corbett. He said Dr. Santos was like that to
everyone, but she took it more personally. Resident 2 went to GME in his role as chief resident
to talk to them about Dr. Corbett because he knew she was unhappy in the program. He told
Investigator that he thought Dr. Corbett looked at Dr. Santos as the cause of her unhappiness.
When asked if he thought Dr. Santos singled Dr. Corbett out based on her gender, Resident 2
said he did not think so especially because there were two other female residents at the time, both
who did very well in the program and who did not complain about him. Resident 2 said he did
not see this as gender-related or gender bias but rather noted that Dr. Santos gave Dr. Corbett lots
of opportunities to do well on tests and gave her time off to study. He thinks Dr. Santos went
“above and beyond” for her. Resident 2 did not recall hearing Dr. Santos call Dr. Corbett missy
and said the residents are generally not called doctor but only by their last names.
Resident 3 (female) was one of the females in the program at the same time as Dr. Corbett.
Other than a couple of joking comments from male residents who thought she got it easier
because she was a female, Resident 3 did not feel like she was treated differently because of her
gender. She never saw him act one way toward a female and a different way toward a male.
More specifically, Dr. Santos did not treat her differently than her male colleagues. She told
Investigator that she never had any issues with Dr. Santos, that he was very supportive, and she
could reach out and talk to him about anything. She described Dr. Santos as “very direct,”
“abrasive,” and someone who is difficult to read but said she had a close relationship with him.
Additionally, Resident 3 told Investigator she was friends with Dr. Corbett and that Dr. Corbett
had complained to her about Dr. Santos. Dr. Corbett felt Dr. Santos targeted her because he did
not think she was smart enough to be in anesthesiology and told Resident 3 that Dr. Santos said
she was stupid and an idiot. Resident 3 did not witness any of these comments and did not
personally experience this herself. However, there were a couple of times when Dr. Santos had
pulled Resident 3 aside and told her she needed to study more and get things together or she
would have a tough go of it. Dr. Corbett never mentioned gender or any gender-based comments
to Resident 3 – only that she felt Dr. Santos targeted her and picked on her. Resident 3 further
remarked that Dr. Corbett had a difficult time during residency some of which stemmed from the
fact that she did not try very hard and did not make the residency program her priority. She
55
D-000111
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 56 of 100
PageID 244
Final Report – Page 7
thinks Dr. Corbett was looking for someone to blame. When asked if she ever heard Dr. Santos
say women did not belong in the program or in medicine, Resident 3 said she had never heard
him make such a comment and would be very surprised if he said something like that especially
because he is gay and has possibly faced discrimination himself. Resident 3 has heard
Dr. Santos use curse words but not directed at any individual. She said Dr. Santos had
nicknames for everyone. He called a male resident by the nickname “beefcakes” and had called
her missy on occasion though never in front of patients. Resident 3 did not perceive this as
negative toward her as a female.
Resident 4 (female) told Investigator she was treated differently based on her gender but in a
positive way. Resident 4 was a new mom during residency and said they allowed her time off,
extended breaks, and granted everything she requested to accommodate her. She had a close
relationship with Dr. Santos and said he was someone she could always talk to. She further told
Investigator that they joked around and that he was very playful and jovial around her. Resident
4 said Dr. Santos never made her feel uncomfortable, and she never felt discriminated against
based on her gender. In fact, she got to work on a lot of difficult cases because of her strong
academic and clinical skills and served as chief resident. Dr. Santos told her she was a strong
performer compared to her peers. She was the only female resident in her class. She never heard
any gender-based comments from him and when asked specifically whether she ever heard him
say women don’t belong in medicine, Resident 4 said she had never heard that and would be
surprised to hear such a comment from him. Resident 4 said he is not a misogynist but more of a
self-deprecating, sarcastic guy adding that he is gay and does not have anything against women.
Investigator asked if Dr. Santos had ever called her missy, she said he might have in a teasing
way but not in a way that bothered her at all. While Resident 4 did hear him curse, the cursing
was not directed at any individual but in the context of conversation.
Investigator spoke with Resident 5 (male) as he was someone specifically mentioned as being
treated poorly by Dr. Santos. Resident 5 said he never felt targeted by Dr. Santos or that he was
treated unfairly but rather stated that everyone was treated equally. Resident 5 described
Dr. Santos as a tough boss, intense, someone with a lot of personality and a lot of responsibility.
He added that he could be gruff, obnoxious, and demand a lot. While he did not always get
along with Dr. Santos or agree with how he managed the program, Resident 5 told Investigator
that Dr. Santos’ actions were not malicious, and he always felt like Dr. Santos had his back and
was invested in his learning.
Resident 5 went on to talk about Dr. Corbett without Investigator initially disclosing who had
made a complaint against Dr. Santos. When asked to confirm who he was referring to, Resident
5 said, “I know you’re talking about Shannon Corbett.” Resident 5 specifically recalled an
experience where he had performed an epidural on his friend who was having a baby. When he
later returned to see his friend, she indicated no one had come by to see her post-operatively
(post-op). Resident 5 knew Dr. Corbett was supposed to do post-op, so he asked her about it.
Dr. Corbett told him she had done so, but when he checked, there were no notes or medical
records to confirm this. Resident 5 said he talked to Dr. Corbett directly about this and in a very
calm, controlled conversation tried to tell her to be careful and that post-op and documenting
notes was part of her job. He told Investigator he was sticking his neck out to protect her from
getting in trouble.
56
D-000112
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 57 of 100
PageID 245
Final Report – Page 8
However, Dr. Corbett told the other residents that he had screamed at her during this
conversation. From that point forward, Resident 5 said he repaired the relationship enough to
work with her but interacted with her as little as possible because she had not been truthful about
their conversation. Additionally, Resident 5 said Dr. Corbett complained constantly about
everybody and always thought someone was being mean to her, so eventually her colleagues
stopped listening to her. He noted that she did not take any correction or feedback well. He also
remarked about how she would get drunk and post lots of stuff on Facebook such as trash
talking, crazy cursing, and just having meltdowns. On one occasion, she posted something about
how she should end her life. Sometimes she would go back and delete the posts.
Resident 5 does not think Dr. Corbett was treated unfairly but rather thinks she received special
treatment because the department gave her so many chances to pass the Basic Exam including
additional opportunities to take the exam beyond what was supposed to be allowable and paid
time to sit in a room and study while the other residents picked up the increased workload.
Resident 6 (female) told Investigator that she had no gender-related concerns with the program.
She had brief but positive interactions with Dr. Santos. She remarked that there are a lot of
female faculty in the department who are really respected and who would not work in a place
where they felt discriminated against based on their gender. Resident 6 did not know Dr. Corbett
well and had limited interactions with her. However, she recalled one time in passing
Dr. Corbett mentioned that Dr. Santos had said something rude about Dr. Corbett. On another
occasion, Dr. Corbett said something along the lines of I hope you feel better about this place
than I do. Resident 6 perceived this comment to mean that Dr. Corbett was not happy in the
program.
Resident 7 (male) said Dr. Santos is one of the fairest people he knows and has made him a
better doctor. He never saw any discrimination against Dr. Corbett although she complained
constantly to everyone that Dr. Santos had it out for her. One time several years ago she
complained to him that Dr. Santos had sent her an email saying she was stupid and a terrible
doctor. When Resident 7 asked to see the email, Dr. Corbett could not produce the email.
Resident 7 pointed out that every other female resident who has gone through the program did
well. He also told Investigator that at one point or another Dr. Corbett thought any number of
attendings were out to get her because of something they said or did. Dr. Corbett got upset with
a female faculty member because the faculty member found her shopping on her iPad during a
case. Dr. Corbett was also unhappy with a male faculty member who was critical of her
performance.
Resident 7 said he does not know anyone in the residency program who feels that Dr. Corbett’s
claims have any merit. He does not believe Dr. Santos treated her differently than the other
residents. When asked if Dr. Santos singled her out during Friday lecture, Resident 7 said
Dr. Corbett often did not know the answers to the book chapter questions, and when you don’t
know the answers, it’s a problem no matter who you are. He said she was woefully unprepared.
Further, he believes Dr. Santos was more than lenient in giving her so many chances to take the
board exam.
Resident 8 (male) was asked whether Dr. Santos had ever made a comment to him about needing
to wear tighter pants. He said he had no recollection of such a comment and did not remember
57
D-000113
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 58 of 100
PageID 246
Final Report – Page 9
anything like that but would not have been offended by such a remark. Resident 8 said he joked
around a lot with Dr. Santos, but he had never heard him joke in a sexual way. He also did not
remember any conversation with Dr. Corbett in which she suggested he report such a comment.
Resident 9 (male) was asked if he remembered Dr. Santos ever making a comment to him about
having a nice butt and wanting to slap it. He laughed and responded, “No, I do not.” When
asked if Dr. Corbett suggested he report such a comment, he replied, “No.” Resident 9 further
stated that while he did not recall any such statement by Dr. Santos, he would not be offended by
a comment like that as he knows what kind of “character” Dr. Santos is.
Resident 10 (male) was asked if he advised Dr. Corbett to study in the OR. He denied telling
Dr. Corbett this and said residents are not supposed to be studying in the OR, depending on the
case it would be difficult to study in the OR, and the attending physician would not be happy if
this was happening. He acknowledged that on occasion during an easy case he might look at
flashcards on an app on his phone. Resident 10 said he did have a conversation with Dr. Corbett
where he was trying to help her out and communicate that she needed to study more efficiently
and use her down time during work to study. He said he was successful because he maximized
his time and used his time wisely to study while at the hospital when other residents might be in
the cafeteria, sleeping, or not doing anything. Resident 10 remarked that Dr. Corbett’s “study
habits in the OR don’t have anything to do with her plight” adding that she had a lot of
opportunity to study that no one else in the program had. He further stated that Dr. Corbett was
given months off to study and got more days off from training than any other residents.
Resident 10 told Investigator that he does not understand how her claim of studying in the OR
related to Dr. Santos as Dr. Santos almost always ran the OR board and was not typically in the
OR with residents. Additionally, Resident 10 never saw Dr. Santos do anything publicly to
Dr. Corbett, never heard him make a gender-based or sexual comment and said that his best
friend was another female resident in the program who had no issues with Dr. Santos. He said
the consensus in the program was that Dr. Santos was a fair person. Resident 10 does not think
there was any discrimination against Dr. Corbett. He thinks her accusations are “not right” and
she is going after someone else rather than taking responsibility for why she did not pass.
Interview of Department of Anesthesiology Faculty Members
Eight faculty members were interviewed in connection with this investigation. All of the faculty
expressed to Investigator that the reason Dr. Corbett was dismissed from the program was
because she was unable to pass the board exam which is a requirement of the American Board of
Anesthesiology. No one witnessed or observed any discrimination against Dr. Corbett based on
her gender including the faculty Dr. Corbett listed as witnesses in her complaint form.
Faculty Member 1 said Dr. Corbett was a good person and a hard worker, but she was unable to
pass the board exam even when she was given three or four chances. Faculty Member 1 did not
witness any discrimination against Dr. Corbett and told Investigator she did not complain of
gender discrimination to him. He said her dismissal had nothing to do with Dr. Santos or anyone
else in the program but was because of her inability to pass the exam required by the medical
board.
58
D-000114
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 59 of 100
PageID 247
Final Report – Page 10
Faculty Member 2 told Investigator that if Dr. Corbett had passed the exam, we would not be
having this conversation adding that she did not think Dr. Corbett was singled out for being
female but for her poor board scores. Faculty Member 2 said Dr. Corbett should be “kissing his
feet” [Dr. Santos] for getting her 6-months paid time off so she could study for the exam.
However, rather than embracing this time, Dr. Corbett blamed Dr. Santos as the reason she was
unable to pass the exam. Faculty Member 2 noted that Dr. Corbett worked hard in the OR but
seemed to get distracted and stressed and would sometimes tire or fatigue. She also spent a lot of
time on Facebook, where she posted every thought and every date she went on. Faculty Member
2 tried suggesting to Dr. Corbett that she not spend so much time on Facebook or disclose so
much personal information.
Dr. Corbett did complain to Faculty Member 2 that Dr. Santos was hard on her and on one
occasion said he had yelled at her for not knowing a chapter review, but she did not complain
that this was based on her gender. Faculty Member 2 told Investigator “he’s hard on everyone”
but believed Dr. Santos was especially concerned about Dr. Corbett passing boards, and
according to Faculty Member 2, he clearly had reason to be concerned. Faculty Member 2 did
not witness Dr. Santos talking badly to Dr. Corbett, did not observe any gender-based comments
or negative behavior, and said she would find it hard to believe that Dr. Santos would make a
comment such as women don’t belong in medicine especially since he works with five female
physicians with whom he has good working relationships. Faculty Member 2 said he has
personally gone to bat for Faculty Member 2 several times. She further stated, “I love Shannon
to death, but I don’t think that [gender discrimination by Dr. Santos] got her knocked out of the
program. Her board scores did.”
Faculty Member 3 did not know Dr. Corbett well but said she listened to her while they were on
call, and she came across as “a complainer.” Faculty Member 3 does not recall any specific
conversations but described the tenor of their discussions as Dr. Corbett was unhappy and
something was always wrong. She recalled on one occasion Dr. Corbett complained that a nurse
in the OR asked to sleep with her. Dr. Corbett did not complain to her about Dr. Santos.
Further, Faculty Member 3 did not observe Dr. Corbett interacting with Dr. Santos or other
residents as they were not typically in the same OR together. Faculty Member 3 has never heard
any gender-based comments by Dr. Santos and could not think of him ever saying something like
women don’t belong in medicine. As a female faculty member, she herself does not feel gender
discrimination or gender bias in the department from her colleagues or leadership and has no
issues with Dr. Santos. Further, Faculty Member 3 told Investigator that the atmosphere in the
department was one where everyone wanted to help Dr. Corbett.
Faculty Member 4 said the only reason Dr. Corbett is out of the program is because she did not
pass the board exam, and when she was given time to study, Dr. Corbett still did not pass.
Faculty Member 4 said she actually thought Dr. Santos was favoring Dr. Corbett by giving her
multiple opportunities to take the test and said it’s kind of amusing that she would pick this
[gender discrimination] especially since there are so many women in the department. Faculty
Member 4 told Investigator there is no gender bias or discrimination here. Dr. Corbett never
complained to her about Dr. Santos. She has never heard him say anything like women don’t
belong in medicine. Faculty Member 4 said she has no problem with Dr. Santos and works
closely with him in recruiting residents to the program. In fact, for a long time Dr. Santos has
said they need more women in the program and has tried to recruit more women.
59
D-000115
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 60 of 100
PageID 248
Final Report – Page 11
With regards to Dr. Corbett, she said Dr. Santos was sympathetic because she was in such a
difficult situation, and he was concerned about her emotional state, so he paired her one-on-one
with Faculty Member 4. She also was sympathetic to what was going on in Dr. Corbett’s
personal life but said Dr. Corbett lost that sympathy fairly quickly. After a pattern of behavior
by Dr. Corbett, Faculty Member 4 told Dr. Santos he would have to find another individual to
serve as her mentor. More specifically, Faculty Member 4 said she felt manipulated by
Dr. Corbett because she provided inconsistent statements about her personal life. Further, in the
clinical setting, Dr. Corbett was not paying attention and a patient “got light” or was waking up
during surgery. Faculty Member 4 caught her on her iPad during a case rather than watching and
monitoring the patient. She said Dr. Corbett was distracted.
Faculty Member 4 said Dr. Santos was trying to help Dr. Corbett and was more tolerant than she
would have ever thought. Further, Faculty Member 4 noted that when Dr. Corbett started having
problems in the program, Dr. Santos gave her good advice by suggesting she move to another
residency and offered to help her with his connections. Faculty Member 4 said if Dr. Santos
used the term missy he did so as a term of endearment not as a disparagement. Although he
usually does not curse around her, she has heard him curse and said there is lots of cursing in the
OR.
Faculty Member 5 also tried to help Dr. Corbett. After she failed the Basic Exam for the third
time, he and Dr. Corbett sat down to come up with a study plan. Additionally, the department
developed a research project, which she could complete quickly so that she could use the
remaining time period to study. He said the research project took approximately one month to
complete giving Dr. Corbett three to four months of uninterrupted study time as she had no call
duties during this period so she could focus on studying. According to Faculty Member 5, the
ABA allows a resident to take the exam two times, and the department can decide whether to
give a resident any additional opportunities to take the exam. Faculty Member 5 said after she
failed the third time, Dr. Corbett’s contract said she would not be renewed, but Dr. Santos openly
told the other faculty that he wanted to give her a fourth chance. Faculty Member 5 told
Investigator that Dr. Santos went to bat for Dr. Corbett and the third and fourth chances to take
the Basic Exam were all due to Dr. Santos’ support of Dr. Corbett.
Dr. Corbett complained to Faculty Member 5 that she thought Dr. Santos was against her and
that the other residents, who were all male, were not treated the same way. He said Dr. Corbett
compared herself to the chief resident, who got the highest score on the exam and passed the
exam on his first attempt without any time off to study and while continuing his call duties.
Faculty Member 5 tried to explain to Dr. Corbett that everyone was trying to help her out; the
program was giving her every opportunity to pass the test by giving her time off to study and
having other residents cover her call time, and that there was no benefit for Dr. Santos to keep
her here if he did not want her to succeed. However, he said Dr. Corbett continued to blame
everyone else. He said lots of people gave her good advice, but she did not want to listen.
Faculty Member 5 told Investigator that Dr. Corbett got distracted by things outside of work and
was unable to stay focused because of things going on in her personal life. She posted on
Facebook a lot telling about her personal activities, despite numerous people telling her not to
put things on Facebook that could affect her program or her career. When asked if Dr. Santos
accused her of being on drugs or alcohol, Faculty Member 5 said he thinks Dr. Santos may have
60
D-000116
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 61 of 100
PageID 249
Final Report – Page 12
asked her one time about drugs and alcohol but from a place of trying to help her and to explain
the issues she was having at work and the inability to study rather than being accusatory.
Faculty Member 5 said Dr. Corbett called Dr. Santos “sexist” a time or two and complained that
he had texted her terrible things, but when Faculty Member 5 asked to see the text messages,
Dr. Corbett no longer had them. She never complained to him about any derogatory statements
made by Dr. Santos related to women in the program or in medicine. Faculty Member 5 told
Investigator he has heard Dr. Santos use the terms missy or mister but as a term of endearment
not in a rude, insulting, or discriminatory way. In fact, Dr. Santos has called him mister. He
added that Dr. Santos will also call individuals by their first or last name but does not typically
call anyone doctor. When asked about the use of curse words, Faculty Member 5 remarked that
lots of people curse in the department and that Dr. Santos uses curse words in vernacular but not
directed at individuals. Dr. Corbett did not complain to Faculty Member 5 that Dr. Santos
threatened to kill her though he has heard him use the phrase “You’re killing me” but not in
violent way and very clearly not a threat. Faculty Member 5 said Dr. Corbett’s allegations
against Dr. Santos are “patently false.” While he may be brutally honest, Dr. Santos is not a
misogynist or a sexist but someone of good character.
Faculty Member 6 told Investigator there is no gender discrimination in the residency program or
the department and stated that Dr. Santos did not discriminate against Dr. Corbett. She said there
are a lot of female faculty members in the department who would not tolerate such behavior.
She emphasized that if he discriminated against female residents, he would also likely
discriminate against female faculty as the pattern of conduct would not stop with residents.
However, Faculty Member 6 said this is not the case. Dr. Santos treats all of the faculty equally
with no agenda. She also believes he treats the residents well and is an extremely good program
director (PD). Faculty Member 6 said Dr. Santos must give feedback and criticism to residents
as part of the learning environment, but he does not do so in an unkind or derogatory way. She
said with Dr. Corbett he reached out far beyond what you would expect a PD to do and that in
most other programs she would have been kicked out far earlier. Faculty Member 6 feels like
Dr. Corbett was given a high amount of support and help. She was fully paid without any
clinical duties for six months so she could study for the exam and still failed the exam. Now
Dr. Corbett is looking for someone to blame for her failure.
Faculty Member 6 told Investigator she tried to help and support Dr. Corbett. She complained
about a lot of people being against her and always claimed it was someone else’s fault.
However, after listening to her complain and offering advice on several occasions, she realized
that Dr. Corbett was “a manipulator.” She wanted to vent and complain and get you to side with
her, but she did not want to change or take any advice, so Faculty Member 6 stopped inviting
such conversations. She said Dr. Corbett was distracted, spent time on social media, and had so
many personal problems that she did not have time to study and pay attention to the details
required for anesthesia patient care.
Faculty Member 7 said half the faculty in the department are female which is unusual compared
to other academic programs. She has never personally felt or observed any kind of gender
discrimination in the department. Faculty Member 7 has a good relationship and has worked
closely with Dr. Santos in her administrative role in the department including faculty and staff
scheduling as well as running the OR board during his absence. While she thinks it was an
61
D-000117
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 62 of 100
PageID 250
Final Report – Page 13
unfortunate turn of events, Faculty Member 7 said Dr. Corbett was given more than enough
attempts to pass the ABA exam. She has never heard of someone getting an extra 6 months off
to study and said Dr. Corbett’s colleagues probably thought she was treated better than they were
by being given extra time while the other residents had to cover her call duties.
She has never heard Dr. Santos call anyone missy nor has she heard him call anyone stupid or an
idiot (not male or female). She has heard Dr. Santos curse in informal conversation with
colleagues but has never heard him curse at or to a resident or subordinate. Faculty Member 7
said the “F word” seems to be used by some of her colleagues in the OR to relieve stress and is
not meant to belittle. When asked if she has ever heard Dr. Santos make the comment that
women don’t belong in medicine, she stated, “That does not jive with what I know about him.”
Faculty Member 8 said she has not experienced any gender discrimination in the department and
has no problems with Dr. Santos. Further, she has never heard any of the other female faculty
members complain about him. In fact, she said, “He treats me very well.” She does cardiac
cases and said if she has been there for a long day, he will try to get her out as soon as possible.
Faculty Member 8 also told Investigator that she had a baby a few years ago and that Dr. Santos
accommodated her during her pregnancy by ensuring that when she was on nights, she worked
with senior residents she could trust to make her shift easier.
When asked about Dr. Corbett, Faculty Member 8 said, “She complained a lot about everything,”
but mostly she talked about her personal life. She talked about her previous history with exboyfriends and about not feeling worthy of anyone. At one point, Dr. Corbett wrote things on
Facebook about not feeling worthy and others in the department became worried about her.
Faculty Member 8 does not recall Dr. Corbett talking much about the residency program or
complaining about Dr. Santos.
Faculty Member 8 has never heard Dr. Santos say women don’t belong in medicine or he does
not want women in the program. She has never heard Dr. Santos tell anyone directly they are
stupid but said he has a New York personality and jokes around a lot. Faculty Member 8 told
Investigator that Dr. Santos calls almost everyone “missy” or “mister,” including her, but she has
never taken it offensively. She further remarked that he calls most people by their first name and
not Doctor. Faculty Member 8 said Dr. Santos does curse, but not directed at people. She said,
he curses but this kind of goes with anesthesia. Faculty member 8 told Investigator that they
gave Dr. Corbett plenty of chances and gave her time off to study and pass the test. She does not
think there was gender discrimination.
Interview of Other Staff
Staff Member 1 is the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) for all of the Graduate Medical
Education (GME) programs at TTUHSC. The Office of GME has three primary functions
including Human Resource matters such as leave, employment contracts, and policies and
procedures; accreditation requirements under ACGME and the various medical boards; and
student services related to concerns with the residency program and/or faculty and staff. Staff
Member 1 said his office meets with all of the residents at least once a year but is available to
meet or answer questions or concerns throughout the resident’s time in the program. He said
Dr. Corbett would pop in with questions from time to time. He further recalled meeting with her
62
D-000118
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 63 of 100
PageID 251
Final Report – Page 14
to discuss specific concerns on at least three occasions as he took notes during these meetings
and provided those notes to Investigator.
According to Staff Member 1 and as set forth in his notes, on May 23, 2017, Dr. Corbett raised
concerns about Dr. Santos’ treatment of her not based on gender but based on Dr. Corbett’s
previous experience as a nurse. Although during this time she was an intern and did not have
much interaction with Dr. Santos other than Friday didactics, she felt singled out by his tone,
language, and comments during didactics. She told Staff Member 1 that his behavior started in
February 2017 and had escalated over the months.
On October 20, 2017, Dr. Corbett met with Staff Member 1 again and complained that
Dr. Santos treated her differently than the other residents in her program (who were all male),
that he was harder on her and said she was going to fail. Dr. Corbett told Staff Member 1 that
two other male residents in her program also thought Dr. Santos was targeting her. She was
concerned that Dr. Santos might retaliate against the other residents if they defended her.
However, Dr. Corbett’s perception was not confirmed when Staff Member 1 spoke with these
other residents regarding the interactions between Dr. Santos and Dr. Corbett. Additionally,
during his meeting with Dr. Corbett, Staff Member 1 specifically asked her about any gender
specific language and said she denied any such language or being targeted based on gender but
continued to claim Dr. Santos treated her visibly different than her peers. He also asked her
about any cursing by Dr. Santos, which she denied. Staff Member 1 told Investigator that he
advised Dr. Corbett at that time of the various policies including Title IX, EEO, and grievance
procedures through the house staff rules, and told her she could formally complain in writing
about Dr. Santos through one of these processes but said she never wanted to pursue any of these
options.
On February 14, 2018, Dr. Corbett met with Staff Member 1 to discuss the United States
Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step III exam. Under the program rules, anesthesia
residents must pass Step III before they can be promoted to post graduate year 3 (PGY-3) and
can only take the exam three times. At this point, Dr. Corbett had already taken the exam twice
but had not passed. During this meeting, Dr. Corbett shared issues going on in her personal life
to explain why she had done poorly on the test. She told him she felt threatened by an exboyfriend in Utah with whom she was involved in a lawsuit. Staff Member 1 suggested she take
a leave of absence to study for the exam, but Dr. Corbett only wanted to take one week off in
March prior to the exam. She did pass the USMLE Step III exam on her third attempt.
According to Staff Member 1, Dr. Corbett consistently struggled in the residency program. He
said Dr. Santos did not want her out of the program. Dr. Santos’ intention was to try to get her to
improve and progress in the program, but he was concerned about her ability to pass the Basic
Exam. Dr. Santos gave Dr. Corbett a lot of chances and a lot of time to study. Staff Member 1
said he never heard any of these other complaints that Dr. Corbett is now making. At no time
did she ever say Dr. Santos made any comment related to gender or threatened to kill her. The
only threat she discussed was by an ex-boyfriend who was not in the department. Dr. Corbett
specifically told Staff Member 1 that Dr. Santos did not “swear.” Dr. Corbett described her
perception of the way Dr. Santos treated her and claimed he told her she was stupid and was not
going to make it. She claimed he targeted her by asking questions of her in didactics. However,
63
D-000119
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 64 of 100
PageID 252
Final Report – Page 15
other residents told Staff Member 1 that Dr. Corbett did not know the answers when questioned
because she was not prepared.
When asked if Dr. Corbett had been referred to EAP because of possible substance abuse, Staff
Member 1 said she was referred to counseling because of concerns that she might harm herself.
Other residents became concerned about her well-being based on some of Dr. Corbett’s posts on
Facebook. These social media posts were reported to him and the program administrators
resulting in a referral to EAP in August 2018. Staff Member 1 said Dr. Corbett previously
sought assistance on her own in December 2017 to address anxiety and stress management. Staff
Member 1 told Investigator that he did not disclose to Dr. Santos the various occasions when
Dr. Corbett came to him with concerns but said Dr. Corbett spoke with other residents about her
complaints with Dr. Santos.
Staff Member 2 is the program coordinator for the anesthesia residency program and visited
often with Dr. Corbett during the last two years about both academic and personal matters. Staff
Member 2 said she treats the residents like they are her own children and that Dr. Corbett shared
a lot of personal information with her including issues with her mother, an abusive ex-boyfriend,
and a custody battle for a cat. In her position as program coordinator, Staff Member 2 must
make sure residents meet program requirements and said she spent a lot of time helping
Dr. Corbett stay on track to succeed in the program. She said Dr. Corbett was not academically
where she needed to be.
Staff Member 2 said the performance issues started when she had difficulty passing the USMLE
Step III exam and had to take the exam three times before she passed. Additionally, when she
had difficulties passing the Basic Exam required by the ABA, Dr. Santos went to bat for
Dr. Corbett by getting her a research position so she would still receive a paycheck and would
have 8 hours a day, 5 days a week to devote to studying. Staff Member 2 said she was present
during a meeting on July 26, 2019, when Dr. Santos explained about the position they were
creating so that Dr. Corbett would have ample time to study for the Basic Exam without any
clinical duties and so that she would receive all resident benefits including pay, meal money, and
insurance. Dr. Santos asked Dr. Corbett to sign an amended program agreement. Staff Member
2 provided hand-written notes she took during this meeting. Investigator asked if Dr. Corbett
wanted an attorney to look at the agreement before she signed it. Staff Member 2 said she never
asked for an attorney to look at the agreement, but had she asked, Dr. Santos would have said
okay. Investigator recounted Dr. Corbett’s allegation that when she asked for an attorney to
review the document, Dr. Santos said “If you want to talk to a mother fucking lawyer, I’m done
here. I’ll terminate you today.” Staff Member 2 responded, “That did not happen.” Because
Staff Member 2’s notes indicated that Faculty Member 5 was also present during this meeting,
Investigator read Faculty Member 5 the same statement above of Dr. Corbett’s allegation, he too,
replied, “No, that did not happen.” Dr. Corbett signed the agreement before leaving the meeting.
Investigator asked Staff Member 2 if Dr. Santos treated Dr. Corbett differently based on her
gender. Staff Member 2 told Investigator that Dr. Santos did not treat Dr. Corbett differently, but
Dr. Corbett felt like he did mainly because the male residents were passing the program
requirements, and she was not. Staff Member 2 said if anything, Dr. Santos was “too easy” on
Dr. Corbett. When asked if Dr. Corbett ever complained about Dr. Santos, Staff Member 2 said
she never complained about Dr. Santos but did make snide remarks about him. Additionally, she
64
D-000120
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 65 of 100
PageID 253
Final Report – Page 16
“griped” about other faculty members who she clashed with including a female faculty member
who said Dr. Corbett was on her phone shopping during a case in the OR and two other male
faculty members who she thought were hard on her.
When Staff Member 2 was asked if Dr. Santos ever accused Dr. Corbett of being on drugs or
alcohol, she responded he never accused her of anything. Dr. Santos did ask what the program
could do to help her pass the exam and if there was something going on in her personal life that
was preventing her from succeeding such as problems with drugs or alcohol. Dr. Corbett told
him no on both accounts. Investigator asked about cursing, and Staff Member 2 said every now
and then she has heard Dr. Santos use a curse word. However, she told Investigator that every
other word out of Dr. Corbett’s mouth was the “F word” and that she had to repeatedly tell her
not to curse. When asked if Dr. Corbett ever complained that Dr. Santos threatened to kill her,
she said, “No,” adding that she had heard him say “You’re killing me” on more than one
occasion and showed a gesture he would make with his hand across his chest. Dr. Santos said
this in reference to low scores on training exams. She had also heard him use the term missy as a
term of endearment and was something he said to a lot of people. Finally, Staff Member 2 is
involved in the recruiting process for the residency program and said the program receives 1,000
to 1,200 applications a year for four spots. She said the applicants are ranked by score
irrespective of their gender, and there are women in the top of the rank list. Staff Member 2
provided the rank list for the last 2 years to Investigator, which is discussed below.
At the request of Dr. Santos, Investigator spoke with other individuals, who provided
information about their interactions with Dr. Santos. Each of the individuals, a female faculty
member and a female hospital administrator at UMC, confirmed what other witnesses had
conveyed that they never felt Dr. Santos treated them any differently because of their gender.
Both women had positive interactions with Dr. Santos, said he treated them with respect, and
remarked that he works with many women in the medical field including nurses, certified
registered nurse anesthetists (CRNA), and other physicians. Both females also commented on
his “colorful language” and “potty mouth” but noted that such language was never directed at an
individual and is commonly heard in stressful environments such as the operating room.
The female faculty member was not personally familiar with Dr. Corbett and did not recall ever
working on a case with her. She said there are phrases faculty use without thinking such as
“You’re killing me here.” She uses this phrase all the time and has heard Dr. Santos use it noting
that it is usually when a trainee is totally screwing up and used as a “gentle reprimand.” As for
Dr. Corbett’s allegation that Dr. Santos threatened to kill her, the female faculty member
responded, “That is insane…That’s not a thing.”
The female hospital administrator was familiar with Dr. Corbett through observation and
conversations with nurses on her staff. She said if a resident or attending has an issue with OR
staff, Dr. Santos sends them to her. Likewise, if staff have an issue with a physician, they also
report concerns to her. She said Dr. Corbett complained to her on more than one occasion about
nurses telling her what to do. Dr. Corbett thought this was unprofessional. The female hospital
administrator told Investigator that the nurses would say something if the patient didn’t look
right or they saw a problem, but Dr. Corbett did not take the feedback well. On another
occasion, Dr. Corbett spoke with the female hospital administrator about a nurse or scrub tech
who made an inappropriate comment to her. She did not want to make a big deal about it but did
65
D-000121
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 66 of 100
PageID 254
Final Report – Page 17
not want to work with this person. The female hospital administrator never heard anything more
about this from Dr. Corbett, so she presumed the problem did not continue. She did not recall
the staff member’s name about whom Dr. Corbett complained.
Interview of Dr. John Wasnick
Dr. Wasnick, Chair of the Department of Anestheiology, was interviewed on March 9, 2020. He
said Dr. Corbett’s situation is not because of discrimination or bias but is a testing issue. He said
the challenges Dr. Corbett faced in the residency program had nothing to do with Dr. Santos.
Dr. Corbett got into trouble with the Basic Exam and was unable to pass this mid-training exam
required by the ABA. According to Dr. Wasnick, had she passed the test Dr. Corbett would have
been back in the department adding that they extended her employment to allow her to take the
exam a third and fourth time. It was required that she pass the exam before she could be
promoted to the next year of training. Dr. Wasnick told Investigator “she hit a hard stop.” After
the third failure, that was supposed to be it. However, he and Dr. Santos intervened to give her
one more shot at passing the exam. The department funded and created a research position to
give her a period of months in which to prepare for the exam with no other duties. Dr. Wasnick
said they went the extra mile to give her every opportunity to pass the test.
Dr. Wasnick pointed out that the Basic Exam was not the first test that Dr. Corbett struggled to
pass. She did not pass the USMLE Step III in a timely manner. She fell behind in passing that
test and never really recovered. Dr. Wasnick told Investigator that Dr. Santos had nothing to do
with her failure of Step III as this test is initially taken during the resident’s intern year before
Dr. Corbett had much interaction with Dr. Santos.
Additionally, Dr. Wasnick said there were some clinical issues with Dr. Corbett which they
remediated, some concerns from nurses in obstetrics, and a number of times when she had to be
counseled about doing epidurals before the attending was present. He said the department had a
visiting professor on campus giving a talk, and the individual commented about how good the
residents in the department were, except for one resident (Shannon Corbett), who was
disinterested. Dr. Wasnick told Investigator that he had never done a case with Dr. Corbett in the
clinical setting and does not think he ever saw her interact with Dr. Santos. More specifically, he
did not recall Dr. Corbett coming to him to complain about Dr. Santos though he did recall her
coming to his office one time because she was having difficulty with a test, and he gave her a
book on epidemiology.
When asked if he ever accused Dr. Corbett of being on drugs or drunk, Dr. Wasnick said he had
never made that accusation. Dr. Wasnick told Investigator that they encourage residents to
voluntarily take a drug/alcohol test when an incident occurs so that they can prove their
innocence and “defang” an accuser adding they do not force anyone but give residents the option
to do this. He also noted that substance abuse is a huge risk in anesthesiology because they are
administering medications and the specialty also has a high incident of suicide. Dr. Wasnick
stated that about a year or two ago Dr. Corbett had posted some stuff on Facebook about feeling
worthless. This was brought to his attention and caused enough concern about possible self-harm
to warrant a referral for Dr. Corbett to seek assistance from EAP. He said no adverse action was
taken against Dr. Corbett based on these Facebook posts.
66
D-000122
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 67 of 100
PageID 255
Final Report – Page 18
Investigator asked Dr. Wasnick about the number of female residents in the program. He said
their resident classes tend to be comprised of more males than females even though they have a
large number of females ranked. The program ranks the applicants based on scores. He said
scores are what we care about because the resident needs to pass various required tests. The
class is then selected through a national match list, which is computer generated taking into
account the program’s ranking of applicants with the applicant’s choice of programs.
Dr. Wasnick noted there are many female faculty members in the department.
Further, Dr. Wasnick responded to some of Dr. Corbett’s specific allegations. When asked if he
ever heard Dr. Santos say women don’t belong in medicine, he replied, “I find that hard to
believe.” He said Dr. Santos has always tried to increase the number of women in the residency
program. He never heard Dr. Santos tell Dr. Corbett she was stupid or an idiot and again said he
found it hard to believe that he would make such statements. While Dr. Wasnick had never
heard him call her missy, he said Dr. Santos is from New Orleans and might use that term but
said Dr. Santos does not call the residents doctor. Dr. Wasnick told Investigator that the OR is a
very informal place where a bunch of folks from different backgrounds must work together and
in sync. He said there is a lot of cursing and F bombs in the OR which is universally true and
serves to destress things in what is a stressful environment. He said this language is used in an
expressive way and never in an ad hominem way or as a personal attack. He did not recall
Dr. Corbett ever being offended by language in the OR. When asked about her claim that
Dr. Santos threatened to kill her, he responded, “That is beyond the pale.”
Interview of Dr. Alan Santos
Dr. Santos was interviewed on March 2, 2020. He told Investigator that he did his best to “bring
[Dr. Corbett] along” especially when he thought she was floundering in the program. At one
point, he paired her up with another female faculty member to work one-on-one on clinical
skills. Dr. Santos said this faculty member is very good but can be demanding, and
consequently, Dr. Corbett did not want to work with her. Importantly, Dr. Santos also noted that
no one wanted to work with Dr. Corbett.
When asked how Dr. Corbett was clinically, Dr. Santos responded, “horrible.” As an
anesthesiologist, he said it is important to pay attention to every detail. For example, if the
patient’s blood pressure drops, the physician needs to respond to that change. Dr. Santos told
Investigator that Dr. Corbett had a number of clinical incidents during her residency exhibiting a
lack of vigilance to detail and poor medical decision-making. On one occasion in a neurosurgery
case, after the patient was put to sleep, Dr. Corbett failed to turn on the gas to keep the patient
asleep during surgery. Even though the patient was being monitored by Dr. Corbett, both the
nurse and the electrophysiologist in the OR noticed that the patient began waking up, and the
attending physician had to be called in. Approximately one year ago, Dr. Corbett did a nerve
block post-op on the wrong knee and without an attending present as required by the program.
Dr. Santos said the patient had his knee all bandaged up from surgery, so he does not understand
why Dr. Corbett would do a block on the other (knee) side. Nevertheless, because he was the
attending of record, Dr. Santos had to inform the patient of the error.
Dr. Santos remarked that Dr. Corbett seemed to get distracted. He said she had layers of
complexity in her personal life and shared some of her personal problems with him including
67
D-000123
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 68 of 100
PageID 256
Final Report – Page 19
that she had been in a prior abusive relationship. He provided Investigator with an email sent
from Dr. Corbett on April 17, 2017 where she wrote:
Dr. Santos,
You told me to think about things and get back with you. I have done a lot of
thinking and I realize that I have some things in my personal life that are blocking
my ability to really focus and keep my mind on the task and remember some of this
information. I think that if I can get that under control and of my mind and continue
studying then things will fall into place so I am starting today with clearing up some
things in my personal life that I need to take care of and see if that doesn't help.
Shannon
At some point, Dr. Santos said he walked Dr. Corbett over to the Employee Assistance Program
(EAP) because he thought she might need some help. He did not require that she go to EAP and
did not send her to EAP for issues with drinking and drugs but suggested she talk to someone
about the personal issues she was experiencing in her life.
In fact, Dr. Santos said he never accused Dr. Corbett of being drunk or on drugs while at work,
and if he suspected any impairment, he would have pulled her out of service and sent her to go
get tested. More specifically, he stated that if a resident tests positive for drugs or alcohol, they
usually voluntarily go into a treatment program so that their medical license is not suspended.
Dr. Santos said he never suspected a drug problem with Dr. Corbett but that there was pervasive
knowledge throughout the department about her use of alcohol. He believes several attendings
spoke to Dr. Corbett about this. He heard from residents in the program that she was on
Facebook every night drunk instead of studying. Dr. Santos said he had never been on her
Facebook page. Further, he never heard that she had ranted about him on Facebook until asked
about it by Investigator.
Dr. Santos said that he tells all of the residents that if something bad happens or an incident
occurs involving them, they should go get drug/alcohol tested themselves because people in the
medical field start talking. That way, if the test is negative, he can put the results in the
resident’s file to protect them. He recalled this happened recently when a male resident
collapsed in the OR (due to medical reasons) and went to get tested to protect himself.
Dr. Santos said he never threatened to send Dr. Corbett to be tested and was not aware that she
had voluntarily tested on her own. However, he noted that she had a number of bad incidents.
He denied Dr. Corbett asking him if he wanted to see test results so he could apologize to her and
stated, “No conversation like that ever happened.” When asked if he said, “I don’t apologize to
women,” Dr. Santos responded, “I never said that.”
According to Dr. Santos, he wanted to give Dr. Corbett an opportunity to pass the board exam
and then repeat the final two years of her program as remediation during which she could work
on clinical skills. He said the Basic Exam is taken during the first year (CA-1 or PGY-2), and if
the resident fails the exam, he/she must take it again during their second year (CA-2 or PGY-3)
and cannot be advanced in the program until the exam is passed. While the TTUHSC
Anesthesiology Residency Program has a policy allowing only two chances to pass the exam,
68
D-000124
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 69 of 100
PageID 257
Final Report – Page 20
Dr. Corbett was given four opportunities to take and pass the exam. Dr. Santos told Investigator
that pursuant to her contract with GME, Dr. Corbett was supposed to be let go after the third
attempt. However, he and John [Dr. Wasnick] got to feeling bad for her and thought she was
unstable enough that if all doors were shut, she might harm herself. As a result, Dr. Santos went
to GME to ask for money and funded Dr. Corbett for 6-months so that she could focus her time
on studying for the Basic Exam without other program responsibilities. Given her previous test
results (she scored in the bottom 1 to 3 % percentile range of all test takers), he was especially
concerned about whether she could pass the exam.
Investigator discussed some of the specific allegations made by Dr. Corbett. When asked if he
ever called her stupid or an idiot, Dr. Santos said, “Never,” adding that he had some difficult
conversations with her regarding her test scores and the need to study but said he would never
insult anyone’s intelligence. Dr. Santos said there is no way to sugarcoat the fact that she studied
for 6 months and scored 2% on the exam. He told Investigator that the program coordinator
(Staff Member 2), was present for most of the conversations he had with Dr. Corbett during the
past three years. He said Staff Member 2 also tried to help Dr. Corbett.
Dr. Santos denied ever saying that women don’t belong in the program. He said their rank list
includes women and is based on grades and performance. In response to the claim that he said
women don’t belong in medicine, Dr. Santos stated, “That’s the most ridiculous thing.” He said
he is an OB anesthesiologist and has received awards in the specialty. Dr. Santos said he does
not address anyone as doctor but calls residents by their first name or sometimes their last name.
He does not use the word “missy” as it is not part of his vocabulary and is more of a southern
term, and he’s from New York. He acknowledged that he has used the word “honey” or “guy.”
He said he snaps his fingers all the time to everyone to indicate come here I need you now.
Dr. Santos told Investigator he runs the OR and has no time for niceties.
When asked if he curses at residents, Dr. Santos stated that he does not curse at residents but
does curse in the hospital. He said it is not directed at any individual but in the context of
conversation. He denied saying have you ever read the fucking book individually to Dr. Corbett
but said it is possible he would say something like that to everyone. He said if she felt singled
out at Friday lecture it was probably because she did not read the assigned pages from the
chapter. He denied saying she was never going to be a good fucking clinician. When asked
about Dr. Corbett’s claim that a UMC nurse said he was being abusive to her and that she was
not going to allow that behavior in her OR, Dr. Santos said, “That never happened.” Further, he
denied making any comments of a sexual nature to either Resident 8 or 9 and asked Investigator
to speak with those individuals.
Dr. Santos said he never threatened to kill Dr. Corbett adding that the allegation was “crazy.” He
might have said something along the lines of I’m going to kill you for doing this or what are you
doing, you’re killing yourself. However, any such comment was not stated as a threat but just to
make the point that what she was doing was something bad. Importantly, during the interview
with Dr. Santos, he used a similar phrase in conversation without even realizing it.
He acknowledged telling her many times to pick another specialty and that she was not cut out
for anesthesia. He tried to steer her to other paths including emergency medicine and pain
69
D-000125
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 70 of 100
PageID 258
Final Report – Page 21
management. Dr. Santos told Investigator he regrets not having these conversations with her
earlier in the residency program.
Dr. Santos told Investigator he did not know Dr. Corbett had gone to the GME office to
complain about him. However, he thinks one of the residents told him she had called ACGME.
Dr. Santos denied any retaliation against Dr. Corbett and said he had not pulled her out of the OR
to do administrative work but so she could read and study to prepare for the board exam. He was
trying to get her to pass the exam otherwise she would not be able to progress in the residency
program. He also noted that there was a period of time when the department was short on
CRNAs and had to use residents to cover some of the patient care during this time.
Dr. Santos said if Dr. Corbett wanted to talk to a lawyer before signing her most recent contract,
he would have told her to go ahead. He denied telling her he would fucking terminate her. He
said Faculty Member 2 was present during this meeting.
Investigator asked Dr. Santos whether Dr. Corbett reported any inappropriate behavior by a
UMC nurse. He said she never reported that to him and if she had, he would have gone after the
guy through the appropriate channels. Dr. Santos was familiar with the individual who she
alleged sent the text message but had no knowledge of this event. He said he never told her the
nurse outranked her, and she was a resident with no power.
When asked if residents are allowed to study in the OR, he said it’s preferred that they not study
in the OR because it distracts them from their role as physicians, but he acknowledged that it
does happen. He told Investigator that they give the residents every Friday off to study. When
asked about her claim that other residents were allowed to study and she was not, Dr. Santos
responded that was “not true.” He also denied that she was cussed out by him and accused of
doing drugs as a result of studying in the OR. However, he said in Dr. Corbett’s case, she had a
number of incidents in the OR. Dr. Santos said he did not stop her from studying in the OR but
believes he addressed this with the entire group of residents by telling them that it looked bad for
them to read in the OR. Additionally, Dr. Santos reiterated that he never accused Dr. Corbett of
alcohol or substance abuse and if he had observed her impaired, he would have taken her off
service. Nevertheless, he does believe he asked her at some point in time if there was anything
he needed to know to help her along, and she denied any substance problems.
Review of Other Evidence
In connection with this matter, Investigator reviewed other evidence obtained during the course
of this investigation. Investigator examined Dr. Corbett’s residency program file, including
documents related to licensure exams, clinical incidents, and other matters. Further, we analyzed
the institutions residency rank list, reviewed information contained in a hand-written journal
provided by Dr. Corbett as well as drug/alcohol test results.
Residency Program File
As outlined in the TTUHSC house staff policies and procedures, post graduate training at
TTUHSC requires that each resident be eligible to be licensed in Texas and to take national
board exams for board certification. More specifically, each resident must pass medical
70
D-000126
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 71 of 100
PageID 259
Final Report – Page 22
licensure exams within certain deadlines and within the number of attempts permitted by the
Texas Medical Board (TMB) prior to being promoted to the next post graduate year (PGY) level.
Importantly, Dr. Corbett was required to pass all three steps of the United States Medical
Licensing Exam (USMLE) and the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) Basic Exam.
Under the program guidelines, Dr. Corbett had to pass USMLE Step III by March 1 or 4 months
before the end of her PGY-2 year in order to be promoted to the next year of training. She met
with the Office of GME on February 14, 2018, and at that time, she was advised and confirmed
her understanding of the TTUHSC USMLE policy and that failure to pass Step III prior to the
end of her contract would make her ineligible to advance to PGY-3 year. While it was suggested
that Dr. Corbett take a 30-day leave to study for the exam, she instead requested one week of
voluntary leave leading up to the exam. She was given the maximum number of attempts (3) to
pass the exam and subsequently passed on her third attempt but did so outside the deadlines set
forth in the program’s policies. Nevertheless, the program provides that at the discretion of the
Program Director (Dr. Santos), the residency position may be continued. Thus, the record
indicates Dr. Santos gave Dr. Corbett leeway and allowed her to continue in the residency
program despite passing the exam outside the program deadlines.
This latitude continued into Dr. Corbett’s residency when she was required to pass the ABA
Basic Exam. This exam is administered by the American Board of Anesthesiology and offered
in summer (June) and fall (November) each year. A resident cannot graduate from residency
training without passing the Basic Exam, and although there is no limit on the number of
attempts, each failure after two attempts extends the residency training. Additionally,
continuation in the residency training is at the discretion of the individual training program.
Dr. Corbett took the Basic Exam on four occasions: June 2018, November 2018, June 2019, and
November 2019. She failed each attempt.
Following the second failed attempt and upon receiving an unsatisfactory report for the
Certificate of Clinical Competence (CCC) reporting period pursuant to ABA policy, the
Department of Anesthesiology agreed to allow Dr. Corbett the opportunity of a third attempt.
This was communicated to Dr. Corbett during a meeting on December 11, 2018 with Dr. Santos
and other program staff members present. As notes from this meeting indicate, passing the exam
would result in continuation in the residency program, and failure would result in termination.
Further, Dr. Corbett was advised to evaluate/reflect on her ability to become board certified in
Anesthesiology and whether to pursue a specialty change with assistance from the department
and the Office of GME. Importantly, she was advised to consider a specialty change by early
March 2019 so that this could be facilitated prior to residency match on March 19, 2019.
Consequently, Dr. Corbett’s program agreement was amended. The Amendment to the 20182019 Graduate Medical Education Program Agreement signed by Dr. Corbett on February 1,
2019 outlined the requirements Dr. Corbett had to meet including that a third failed attempt of
the ABA Basic Exam would result in a recommendation of dismissal from the program, and that
if she successfully passed the exam, continuation in the program would be determined through
assessment by the Clinical Competency Committee.
On March 12, 2019, Dr. Santos offered to help Dr. Corbett study and wrote:
71
D-000127
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 72 of 100
PageID 260
Final Report – Page 23
Shannon, I know that you are studying hard from looking at your book. As we
discussed, why don’t you and I sit together and cover a couple of chapters in MM
together – I have a feeling you are getting lost in detail. Let me know what you
think.
Dr. Corbett responded shortly after as follows:
I would love that. I think you are right. I believe that would help.
Email correspondence in late April 2019 reflected Dr. Santos belief that it was not likely that
Dr. Corbett would pass the Basic Exam based on her low In Training Exam (ITE) scores. At this
point, Dr. Santos also began asking what plans and resources were available to help her
transition from the program should she fail the exam.
However, even after Dr. Corbett failed the Basic Exam a third time, rather than dismiss her from
the program, Dr. Santos proposed extending her residency for one year provided she seek
counseling and enter an exam preparation program to build her test taking skills. On
July 16, 2019, he wrote:
The scores are out – she hasn’t let us know but John and I are worried about what
she will do if she does not pass. In that case, we would like to have her be a research
assistant in the Department for a nominal sum (50K) and health benefits. …
In a July 17, 2019 email, he further expressed his opinion that “she will never pass the
boards and add to our failure burden. Nonetheless, I don’t want to hurt her.”
Despite that Dr. Corbett should have been recommended for dismissal, she was afforded
a final attempt to pass the ABA Basic Exam. Under an amended program agreement
signed by Dr. Corbett on July 26, 2019, she was placed in a resident research status,
assigned a faculty mentor, and removed from all clinical privileges, so she would have
significant time to study for the exam. Finally, she was informed that a fourth failed
attempt would demonstrate a significant deficiency in medical knowledge and would
result in immediate recommendation for dismissal from the program.
On December 10, 2019, after failing the exam a fourth time, she was provided notice of
recommendation for dismissal. At which time, she immediately filed a complaint of
discrimination.
Residency Program Rank List
In addition to her residency program file, Investigator examined the Department of
Anesthesiology’s rank list of residents for the last two years to assess Dr. Corbett’s
allegation that Dr. Santos does not want women in the residency program. In 2020, the
Anesthesiology program ranked 107 total applicants. Four of the five top ranked
applicants by the institution were female, and 50% of the top ten applicants were female.
The computer-generated match results yielded one female and three males for the
incoming resident class. In 2019, 133 total applicants were ranked by the institution.
72
D-000128
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 73 of 100
PageID 261
Final Report – Page 24
Three of the five top ranked applicants were female, and 30% of the top ten applicants
were female. Similar to 2020, the match results yielded one female and three males in
the resident class.
Journal Entries
Dr. Corbett provided an electronic copy of handwritten entries she made to a personal
journal beginning May 24, 2017 and with the last entry dated December 13, 2019. There
are approximately 43 entries over a two and one-half year period of time (18 entries –
2017; 13 entries – 2018; 12 entries – 2019 with no entries between June 6, 2019 and
November 18, 2019). Investigator did not inspect the actual journal in person and has no
way of authenticating the accuracy, determining when each entry was made, or knowing
whether pages are missing.
More specifically as it relates to Dr. Corbett’s allegations of gender discrimination, there
are only two references to gender in her journal. On February 11, 2018, Dr. Corbett
wrote about a female nurse who had flipped her off and called her a bitch, and according
to the entry when Dr. Santos spoke with her about this he said, “You are a resident and
she is a nurse so she out ranks you and can act in any manner she wants to because if you
fight her on this she will only turn all of the other nurses against you. You are a female
so you are going to take more crap from everyone who is jealous and its not right but it is
the way it is and you just have to deal with it until you move on.” Dr. Corbett used
almost the exact same language in a February 12, 2020 email to Investigator to describe
Dr. Santos’ response when she claimed a male nurse sent her an inappropriate text
message. In that case, when she talked to Dr. Santos about it, she said his exact response
was “you a resident and he is a nurse, he out ranks you and can do whatever he wants.
Residents have no power here so I suggest you just leave it alone and continue to go
about your business.” It is also important to note that as alleged this is not an act of
discrimination on Dr. Santos’ part but on the part of others.
The second reference to gender is an entry from May 22, 2018 and corresponds with an
allegation Dr. Corbett has made as part of her complaint to the Office of EO. She stated
in her journal that “He (Dr. Santos) accused me of doing drugs and I went to Any Lab
Test Now and had a negative drug test and I asked him if he would apologize and he said
‘I don’t apologize to women.’ Then he walked off.”
Additionally, Dr. Corbett’s journal includes an entry on August 22, 2018 where she wrote
that Dr. Santos pulled her off rotation because another resident told him she was drunk at
a party on August 19, 2018 adding that she spoke with employee assistance and they
cleared her, and she went and had an alcohol test done at Any Lab Test Now. There are
two other references in the journal to having drug testing done—on November 29, 2017
Dr. Corbett wrote that she was asked if she wanted to voluntarily submit to a drug test to
prove her innocence related to an inquiry into her narcotics record, and on February 6,
2018, she wrote that she was accused of using drugs and asked to defend some clinical
decisions she had made.
73
D-000129
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 74 of 100
PageID 262
Final Report – Page 25
Other references in the journal which pertain to allegations in this complaint, but are not
specific to gender, include that Dr. Santos scowled at or ignored her, used profane
language (July 5, 2017 and July 7, 2015 [sic]), and told her she was going to fail the
boards. On three occasions in 2017 (June 21, 2017; July 7, 2015 [sic]; September 1,
2017) she wrote that Dr. Santos told her “I’m going to kill you” or “I’m going to have to
kill you.”
Further, on July 18, 2017, Dr. Corbett wrote about Dr. Santos belittling and yelling at her
in front of OR staff and mentioned two nurses by name who were present. The journal
entry goes on to state that “the exact details of the conversation are escaping me. …”
These are the same names that Dr. Corbett provided Investigator during her interview
when she spoke of performing an arterial line in 2017 and being berated by Dr. Santos.
Importantly, she provided details during her interview with the Office of EO many years
later but was unable to recall the exact details of the conversation presumably close in
time when this journal entry was made in July 2017.
Drug/Alcohol Testing
Dr. Corbett told Investigator that she had gone to an independent lab approximately ten
times to get tested at her own expense as a result of accusations against her. She
provided Investigator with results from tests administered on eight occasions: January 15,
2018 (alcohol); February 9, 2018 (alcohol and drugs); February 23, 2018 (alcohol);
March 16, 2018 (alcohol); March 30, 2018 (alcohol); May 18, 2018 (alcohol and drugs);
May 23, 2018 (alcohol); June 19, 2018 (alcohol and drugs). Some testing was for
alcohol, some screening for various drugs, and some testing included both alcohol and
drug screening. All of the test results provided by Dr. Corbett were negative. There were
no test results provided in connection with August 22, 2018 when Dr. Corbett claimed
she was sent to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for possible substance abuse
issues.
Referral to Employee Assistance Program
According to the Office of GME, it was recommended that Dr. Corbett seek assistance
from EAP to discuss concerns with anxiety and stress management. This was a selfreferral (not mandatory) and occurred in December 2017.
In August 2018, Dr. Corbett was removed from clinical duties under a mandated referral
to EAP based on concerns for her well-being. At the time, Dr. Corbett made some posts
on Facebook which expressed her negative feelings about herself and which others in her
program had viewed and caused them concern about possible self-harm. As a result,
Dr. Corbett was sent to EAP for an assessment of her well-being prior to reentering
clinical duties. She was not referred because of possible substance abuse issues.
Applicable Operating Policy
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Operating Policy 51.02 (Non-Discrimination and
Anti-Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedure for Violations of Employment and Other Laws)
74
D-000130
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 75 of 100
PageID 263
Final Report – Page 26
prohibits discrimination and harassment in the workplace. The university does not tolerate
discrimination or harassment based on or related to sex (including pregnancy), race, national
origin, religion, age, disability, protected veteran status, genetic information, or other protected
categories, classes, or characteristics. Discriminatory behavior is prohibited regardless of the
manner in which it is exhibited, whether verbally, in writing, by action, or electronically displayed
or conveyed. OP 51.02 defines harassment as:
verbal or physical conduct that shows hostility toward an individual based on or
related to sex, race, national origin, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation,
gender identity, genetic information, or other protected categories, classes, or
characteristics and that:
(1) Creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or educational
environment;
(2) Has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee’s or
student’s educational performance;
(3) Adversely affects an employee’s employment opportunities or student’s
educational opportunities; and
(4) Is severe or pervasive.
For all complaint investigations conducted under this policy, the burden of proof shall be a
preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. Importantly, this report only
addresses whether the complained of conduct violated the University’s policies and procedures
and does not reach conclusions on whether such matters constituted any violation of law.
Findings and Conclusion
After evaluating the information gathered during the investigation, we found no evidence to
support Dr. Corbett’s allegations of discrimination or harassment based on gender or her claims
that Dr. Santos’ conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive that it created an intimidating,
hostile, and offensive working and educational environment based on her sex. Therefore, we
find no violation of OP 51.02.
We do not find that Dr. Corbett was given notice of dismissal from the residency program based
on any discriminatory reason but solely based on her inability to pass a required board exam
even though she was given multiple opportunities.
We find substantial evidence in the record to support that Dr. Corbett took and failed the ABA
Basic Exam on four occasions despite her statement during this investigation that she had taken
the exam only twice – in November 2018 and November 2019.
We do not find that Dr. Santos treated Dr. Corbett differently based on her gender. However, we
do find that he treated her differently, and in fact, more favorably than her colleagues in the
residency program by extending her employment and training and allowing her to take the Basic
Exam a third and fourth time. Further, we find that Dr. Corbett was supposed to be dismissed
following her third failed attempt as set forth in her Amended 2018-2019 GME Program
Agreement, but according to numerous faculty members in the department and email
75
D-000131
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 76 of 100
PageID 264
Final Report – Page 27
correspondence, Dr. Santos was vocal about wanting to give Dr. Corbett a fourth and final
chance to take the exam. We also find that not only did he agree to give her a fourth attempt, but
he tried to put her in the best position to succeed. Dr. Santos created and funded a research
position, so that Dr. Corbett remained at her annual resident salary of approximately $58,000
even though she was studying. This allowed her to have ample time to study without having to
fulfill clinical duties, and she was paired with a faculty member to mentor and help her study.
We do not find that Dr. Santos was trying to get Dr. Corbett (a woman) out of the program.
Rather, we find ample evidence to the contrary and conclude that he went above and beyond to
allow her to continue in the residency program.
We do not find evidence that Dr. Santos made statements to Dr. Corbett such as women don’t
belong in medicine or that he wanted women out of the program. Dr. Santos denied making any
such statements, no one heard any such statements from Dr. Santos, and almost every female
interviewed in connection with this investigation responded that they would be surprised or
would find it hard to believe that Dr. Santos would ever say something like that. Additionally,
the rank list from the last two years does not corroborate Dr. Corbett’s claim that Dr. Santos does
not want women in the program as there are females in the top of that rank list, and several
individuals in the department who are part of the recruiting process said Dr. Santos has
consistently tried to recruit more women to the residency program.
We do not find that Dr. Santos referred to other male residents as doctor while failing to address
Dr. Corbett as doctor. We find that he did not call anyone doctor but called most individuals by
their first or last name. Dr. Santos denied using the term missy but said he had used the terms
honey and guy. However, several individuals including both residents and attending physicians
said he had called them missy or mister on occasion. None of them found it to be derogatory or
offensive and several described it as a term of endearment. Thus, we find it likely that
Dr. Santos called Dr. Corbett missy on occasion but not in a discriminatory manner and not in
place of calling her doctor as he typically did not call either males or females doctor.
By his own admission and based on testimony from numerous witnesses, we find that Dr. Santos
used curse words and profanity in the workplace. However, we find that such language was used
in vernacular and not directed at her or other individuals in a pejorative way as alleged by
Dr. Corbett. At least one witness commented on Dr. Corbett’s frequent use of profanity in the
workplace. Importantly, we understand that profanity is used by many individuals in the medical
field and is often used by medical providers particularly in the OR due to the stressful
environment, nonetheless we find that the use of such language while not discriminatory is
unprofessional in the workplace.
We find no evidence that Dr. Santos threatened to kill Dr. Corbett. Not only did Dr. Corbett
acknowledge that she was never in fear that he would kill her, but we are also unable to find any
evidence that she reported such a threat. Rather, we find that Dr. Santos may have used a phrase
such as “You’re killing me” to express frustration or displeasure but never as a threat of violence
or a threat to cause harm.
We do not find that Dr. Santos made negative remarks to Dr. Corbett or singled her out based on
her gender. No other female residents support her claim of gender discrimination. In fact, none
76
D-000132
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 77 of 100
PageID 265
Final Report – Page 28
of the four female residents interviewed as part of this investigation felt that Dr. Santos treated
them differently based on their gender. Even though one individual did not like the way she was
treated by Dr. Santos, she did not attribute this to her gender as she observed him treat male
colleagues in the same manner. Additionally, many residents interviewed (both females and
males) thought Dr. Corbett was treated more favorably because she was given so many
opportunities to pass the Basic Exam including getting paid time off to study.
We find no evidence that Dr. Santos sexually harassed other male residents. Both Dr. Santos and
the male residents denied any such statements were ever made by Dr. Santos.
We do not find that the chief resident went to the Office of GME and told them Dr. Corbett was
being treated unfairly and differently by Dr. Santos because she was a woman. Both the chief
resident and GME denied this claim. The resident did speak to GME because Dr. Corbett was
unhappy in the program but not because he felt Dr. Santos was treating her differently based on
her gender.
We do not make a finding about whether Dr. Corbett was accused of having a substance abuse
problem by the residency program. However, there is no evidence of this contained in her
residency file. We do find that there were conversations with Dr. Corbett in trying to determine
the underlying cause of performance issues and clinical incidents. While Dr. Corbett provided
Investigator with eight drug and/or alcohol screening results that she had performed on her own,
she was never mandated by the program to be tested, and the program was unaware that she had
gone to get tested on multiple occasions. Therefore, we do not find that Dr. Santos told
Dr. Corbett that he did not apologize to women in response to her submitting to a voluntary drug
or alcohol screening.
We do not find that Dr. Corbett was sent to EAP for possible substance abuse issues but that she
was referred to EAP related to posts she made on Facebook and concerns about her well-being
and possible self-harm. Importantly, numerous individuals interviewed for this investigation
mentioned Dr. Corbett’s Facebook posts and that through conversation she shared lots of
information about her personal life, including details of prior relationships and family matters.
We do not find that Dr. Corbett was pulled out of the OR as retaliation for complaining about
Dr. Santos. We find she was removed from all clinical duties in July 2019 so she could focus on
studying and passing the Basic Exam, which would be the fourth and final attempt afforded to
her.
We find no evidence to support Dr. Corbett’s allegation that Dr. Santos cursed at her and
threatened to terminate her if she wanted a lawyer to review documents. Two other individuals
were present on July 26, 2019 when Dr. Corbett was asked to sign an amendment to her program
agreement, and both denied this ever happened.
Finally, Dr. Corbett claimed it was calculated on Dr. Santos’ part for waiting so long to terminate
her implying that his actions have made it more difficult for her to now get into another program.
We do not find this to be the case. We find that as early as December 2018 after Dr. Corbett had
failed the board exam a second time, she was asked to consider pursuing a different specialty
with an offer of assistance from the department and GME. We find that after her third failed
77
D-000133
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 78 of 100
PageID 266
Final Report – Page 29
attempt, Dr. Corbett should have been dismissed from the program but was offered yet a fourth
and final attempt to pass the exam. Further, the department created a funded research position so
that Dr. Corbett would receive a salary during this time and removed her from clinical duties so
she would have dedicated time to study.
Based on the foregoing findings, we conclude there was no discrimination or harassment based
on gender against Dr. Corbett, and therefore, find no violation of OP 51.02.
78
D-000134
Sent on behalf of Dr. Deryk Walsh
This email is to accompany the evaluation being sent to your department regarding Dr. Shannon
Corbett.
Overall, our department has serious concerns regarding her performance during the month
November in 2018.
From a patient care standpoint:
Starting from a patient work up standpoint, Dr. Corbett did not adequately evaluate her
Case
1919 Filed
Page 79
79 of
PageID267
267
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
of 100
100 PageID
APPENDIX 5
patients. Evaluation received stated she was not prepared. Examples stated, " She did not make
attempts to look up her patients during my day with her." " Because Shannon arrived after 7am,
I performed the pre-op evaluation on my own so that she could change into scrubs and look up
the patient's history".
Regarding room set-up she also showed delinquency. Statements in her evaluation said, "She
does not know basic setup requirements including how to choose appropriate ETT sizes for
kids." "Shannon was unsure of how to use a Phillips blade (as in, should it be used similar to a
curved or a straight blade). Despite being on her fourth clinical day, she seemed unfamiliar with
the anesthesia machine/ventilator."
Evaluations of her anesthetic plan consistently discussed her "guessing" on drug dosages. We
provide every resident/rotator with a handbook having all appropriate weight-based
dosing. Quotes from the evaluations were, "appears to be guessing" and " Additionally, when
asked, she stated that she was "just guessing."
From a professional standpoint:
"Shannon is a very polite person and interacts well with people."
Confidential Peer Review
79
D-000486
Case
1919 Filed
Page 80
80 of 100
PageID268
268
Case5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-H Document
Document
Filed 11/08/22
11/08/22 Page
100 PageID
Overall the general consensus from the faculty was that Shannon is not performing at a CA-2
level. The general thought is that she is at an early CA-1 level. Staff was not comfortable with
having her be left alone in the operating room. One staff wrote, "Shannon does not appear to
understand even basic concepts of anesthesiology including vent settings, drug dosages, etc. She
is completely unprepared to be in the OR particularly with pediatric patients. She shows no
intellectual curiosity and doesn't appear interested in patient work-up, co-morbidities."
She is a very personable and affable individual, but seems to need some remediation.
We hope this evaluation will help serve as a "wake-up" call to Shannon and facilitate some form
of remediation. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Deryk Walsh, MD
Associate Professor
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management
Confidential Peer Review
80
D-000487
APPENDIX
6 19 Filed 11/08/22
Document
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
1
Page 81 of 100
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
2
3
SHANNON CORBETT
4
Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
SCIENCES CENTER,
CASE NO. 5:21-CV-00281-H
7
8
PageID 269
Defendant
_____________________________/
9
10
DATE TAKEN:
September 21, 2022
11
TIME:
8:56 a.m CDT -- 11:11 a.m. CDT
12
PLACE:
Via Zoom
13
WITNESS:
Alan Santos, M.D.
14
REPORTED BY: SUSAN KENNEDY, COURT REPORTER
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Santos,
Document 19Alan
Filed
11/08/22M.D.
Page 82 of 100
September 21, 2022
1
APPEARANCES:
2
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
MATTHEW HARRIS LAW, PLLC
1101 Broadway
Lubbock, Texas 79401-3303
FrontDesk@MatthewHarrisLaw.com
Tel: (806) 702-4852 | Fax: (800) 985-9479
BY: Carrie A. Harris, Esquire
3
4
5
6
8
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
300 W. 15th Street
Austin, TX 78701
BY: Ben Walton, Esquire
9
ALSO PRESENT:
10
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
NATHAN CHRISTOPHER, ESQUIRE
3601 4th Street Ste. 2B237
Lubbock, Texas 79430
7
11
12
13
14
15
16
ALSO PRESENT:
Videographer:
US LEGL SUPPORT
701 Brazos Street
Unit 380
Austin, Texas 78701
BY: Gina Valdez
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC
713-653-7100
PageID 270
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 83 of 100
1
available to Dr. Corbett so she could receive
2
assistance on passing that ABA basic exam?
3
A
PageID 271
I offered her assistance in trying to, as
4
we discussed earlier and the documents I think will
5
read, I offered her assistance and, do you want to
6
sit down and go through the paragraphs?
7
couldn't do it all the time.
8
could break down that wall with the paragraphs and
9
the, you know, kernel of knowledge that was going to
10
be tested, I thought that we would be getting
11
somewhere.
12
Q
Okay.
14
A
No.
15
Q
Why not?
16
A
I don't know.
17
Q
Did you ever schedule any meetings?
18
A
No; I asked her -- Again, I didn't want to
13
I mean, I
I figured that if I
Did she have those meetings with
you?
19
put her in a bad position.
20
know that I was available and after hours we could
21
read the clincher line from each paragraph and she
22
never availed herself of that.
23
Q
But, I wanted her to
Did you -- So you offered to sit down with
24
her.
Did you ever provide Dr. Corbett with any
25
substitutive advice how to pass the ABA basic exam?
83
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
1
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Page 84 of 100
PageID 272
CERTIFICATE OF OATH
2
I, the undersigned authority, certify that
3
Alan Santos, M.D., personally appeared before me on
4
the 21st day of October, 2022 and was duly sworn.
5
WITNESS, my hand and official seal this
6
17th day of October, 2022.
7
8
9
__________________________________
Susan Kennedy, Court Reporter
Notary Public
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
1
2
Santos,
Document 19Alan
Filed
11/08/22M.D.
Page 85 of 100
September 21, 2022
PageID 273
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
The State of Texas)
3
4
5
6
7
I, Susan Kennedy, Court Reporter and
Notary Public, do hereby certify that I was
authorized to and did stenographically report the
deposition of Alan Santos, M.D., and that a review
of the transcript was requested; and that the
foregoing pages, numbered 1 to 76, inclusive, are a
true and correct transcription of my stenographic
notes of the deposition of Alan Santos, M.D.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I further certify that said deposition was
taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth
and that the taking of said deposition was commenced
and completed as hereinabove set out.
I further certify that I am not an
attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I
a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel of
any party connected with the action, nor am I
financially interested in the action.
The foregoing certification of this
transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the
same by any means unless under the direct control
and/or direction of the certifying reporter.
16
17
DATED this 17th day of October, 2022.
18
19
20
21
__________________________________
Susan Kennedy, Court Reporter
Notary Public.
22
23
24
25
85
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC
713-653-7100
CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
This form is
affected by the Privacy Act
of 1974. See enclosed
Privacy Act
From:
Matthew
Harris
Law, PI Fax: 18009859479
Statement and other information before completing this form.
Charge Presented to:
[ ] FEPA
[X] EEOC
Agency(ies) Charge No(s):
Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division and EEOC
EEOC Form 5 (11/09)
State or local Agency, if any
Name (Indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.)
Ms. Shannon Corbett
Home Phone (Incl. Area Code)
[REDACTED]
Date of Birth
[REDACTED]
Street Address
[REDACTED]
City, State, and ZIP Code
Lubbock, Texas 79414
Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe
Discriminated Against me or Others. (If more than two, list under PARTICULARS below.)
Name
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
No. Employees, Members
500+
Phone No. (Include Area Code)
(806) 743-2984
Street Address
3601 4th Street
City, State, and ZIP Code
Lubbock, Texas 79430-8182
Name
No. Employees, Members
Phone No. (Include Area Code)
Street Address
City, State, and ZIP Code
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es).)
[ ] RACE [ ] COLOR [X] SEX [ ] RELIGION [ ] NATIONAL ORIGIN
[X] RETALIATION [ ] AGE [ ] DISABILITY [ ] GENETIC INFORMATION
[ ] OTHER (Specify)
DATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE
Earliest
03/17/2016
Latest
12/10/2019
[X] CONTINUING ACTION
THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional paper is needed, attach extra sheet(s)):
During my employment, I was subjected to a hostile work environment and harassment. The program
director cursed at me and threatened to kill me on numerous occasions. I was subject to bullying by the
program director during my entire employment. I made reports of the behavior, but the reports were
dismissed without investigation. The program director stated several times in no uncertain terms that he
?Doctor,? but only called me ?Missy? or would just snap his fingers at me. I would ask the program director
was given a recommendation for dismissal on December 10, 2019.
I believe I was discriminated and retaliated against as described above, because of my sex, in violation of
the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.
I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any. I
will advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I will
cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with
their procedures.
NOTARY ? When necessary for State and Local Agency Requirements
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.
3-31-2020 Shannon Corbett
Date
Charging Party Signature
I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to
the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
86
D-000080
To: Fax: (915) 534-6701 Page: 9 of 9 04/01/2020 4:08 PM
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
5:21-cv-00281-HDocument
Document
Filed 11/08/22
Page
86 of
Case
19-7 19
APPENDIX
7 Filed 11/08/21
Page
86100
of 100PageID
PageID 274
274
wants women out of the program. The program director always addressed the men in the program as
(month, day, year)
for help, but he would state that I was going to fail the medical boards, then dismiss me or scowl at me. I
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Page 87 of 100 PageID 275
APPENDIX 8
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
SHANNON CORBETT,
Plaintiff,
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
v.
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 5:21-CV-00281-H
VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION
OF
SHANNON CORBETT
Tuesday, October 4, 2022
REMOTELY REPORTED
VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF SHANNON CORBETT,
produced as a witness at the instance of the Defendant,
and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and
numbered cause on Tuesday, October 4, 2022, from
10:01 a.m. to 5:58 p.m., before Debbie D. Cunningham,
CSR in and for the State of Texas, remotely reported via
Machine Shorthand, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
--ooOoo--
87
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
1
Filed 11/08/22
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 88 of 100 PageID 276
2
APPEARANCES
2
3
4
5
FOR PLAINTIFF:
MATTHEW HARRIS LAW, PLLC
1101 Broadway
Lubbock, Texas 79401
(T) 806.702.4852
6
By:
7
Carrie A. Harris, Esq.
carrie@matthewharrislaw.com
8
9
10
11
FOR DEFENDANT:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(T) 512.463.2120
12
By:
13
Yvonne D. Bennett, Esq.
yvonne.bennett@oag.texas.gov
14
15
VIDEOGRAPHER/ZOOM TECH:
16
Amelia Christopher
17
18
ALSO PRESENT:
19
Nathan Christopher
20
--ooOoo-21
22
23
24
25
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
88
www.integritylegal.support
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
1
at that time.
2
Q.
Okay.
3
A.
M.F.
4
Q.
Okay.
Filed 11/08/22
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 89 of 100 PageID 277
88
And do you recall her name?
, I believe.
Are you aware of any Texas
5
Tech anesthesiology resident other than
6
yourself who did not pass their basic exam on
7
four tries?
8
A.
No, I do not.
9
Q.
Do you know of any Texas Tech
10
anesthesiology resident who did not pass three
11
times?
12
A.
No, I do not.
13
Q.
And are you aware of any Texas Tech
14
anesthesiology resident who did not pass their
15
basic exam after two tries?
16
A.
I do believe that S.C.
17
tried at least twice, but I don't know that for
18
a solid fact.
19
and J.F.
maybe took it twice; I
20
don't know for sure.
But I know for sure all
21
three failed at least one time, but it was
22
never disclosed to me if they failed the second
23
time.
24
25
Q.
Okay.
I do believe that A.L.
So other than yourself, you
don't know of anyone in the Texas Tech
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
89
www.integritylegal.support
1
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 90 of 100 PageID 278
89
anesthesiology residency program who failed
2
that basic exam four times other than yourself;
3
is that right?
4
A.
No, ma'am.
5
Q.
Maybe I didn't phrase that correctly.
6
A.
Sorry.
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
7
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
No, I don't know of any other
people that failed it four times.
8
Q.
And when you say "people," just to
9
keep the record clear, when we say -- when you
10
say "people," we're talking about residents of
11
the Texas Tech anesthesiology residency
12
program?
13
A.
Yes, ma'am.
14
Q.
All right.
15
walking through --
16
17
I want to continue
MS. BENNETT:
Well, actually can
we take a quick, five-minute break right here?
18
MS. HARRIS:
Yes.
19
MS. BENNETT:
We've been going a
20
couple of hours, and I do need to visit the --
21
will that work for everybody?
22
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
23
MS. BENNETT:
Will ten minutes
THE WITNESS:
Ten minutes works
24
25
work?
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
90
www.integritylegal.support
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 91 of 100 PageID 279
96
1
A.
Yes, ma'am.
2
Q.
And each time you sat for that exam,
3
I mean, you had the opportunity to pass the
4
exam and stay in the program; isn't that right?
5
A.
I did, yes, ma'am.
6
Q.
Right.
7
exam, did you?
8
A.
No, ma'am.
9
Q.
You took it four different times, and
10
But you did not pass the
you never passed the exam; is that correct?
11
MS. HARRIS:
12
Go ahead.
13
A.
Yes, ma'am.
14
Q.
(BY MS. BENNETT)
Asked and answered.
You testified that
15
you asked to transfer out of the anesthesiology
16
residency program two times before you sat for
17
the exam in June of 2018.
18
time you asked to transfer out of the
19
anesthesiology residency program?
20
21
22
A.
When was the third
It would have been after I got the
results that I failed the exam the first time.
Q.
Okay.
You failed the exam the first
23
time -- you sat for it in June of 2018.
Do you
24
recall about how long it takes for you to get
25
your results?
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
91
www.integritylegal.support
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 92 of 100 PageID 280
235
Here -- and we're back on Exhibit 8,
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
1
Q.
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
2
which is your Complaint of Discrimination
3
turned into Texas Tech University System.
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
Here, you say that, "Dr. Santos
6
constantly harassed me and created a hostile
7
work environment."
8
that we were talking about earlier during the
9
time that you were trying to study before the
10
November exam?
11
A.
Are those the activities
These activities happened from the
12
time he took over as program director until the
13
time I was dismissed from the program.
14
was never a point in time when he did not
15
harass me or the environment was not hostile.
16
17
Q.
There
When you first started, you said your
rotation was in Internal Medicine, correct?
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
How often did you see Dr. Santos
20
21
22
23
24
25
during a given week?
A.
Usually, once or twice a week during
my Internal Medicine time.
Q.
And how long were you on that
rotation?
A.
For Internal Medicine you do one
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
92
www.integritylegal.support
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 93 of 100 PageID 281
236
So it's twelve months, from July to
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
1
year.
2
July.
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
3
Q.
And you started in July 2- --
4
A.
Oh, sorry.
5
Q.
Did you start in July 2016?
6
A.
Yes, ma'am, July 1st of 2016.
7
Q.
All right.
So that through July of
8
2017, you were on Internal Medicine rotation;
9
and you said you saw him one to two times a
10
week?
11
A.
Yes, ma'am.
12
Q.
And did you see him every week of
13
that one-year rotation?
14
A.
Unless he was out of town or, you
15
know, on vacation, then, yes, I would see him
16
at least a minimum of once a week.
17
18
Q.
vacation during that first year?
19
20
Was there any time that you took
A.
Yes, I do believe I used 10 out of
the 15 days we were allotted for vacation.
21
Q.
All right.
So one or two times a
22
week.
23
your Internal Medicine rotation, about how many
24
minutes per day did you see him?
25
And when you saw him while you were on
A.
It would depend.
So, usually,
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
93
www.integritylegal.support
1
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 94 of 100 PageID 282
237
Fridays were supposed to be reserved for our
2
didactic sessions, where we did studying for
3
the boards and, like -- basically, it was the
4
book studying portion; whereas, being in the OR
5
was kind of the hands-on portion.
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
6
Q.
Uh-huh.
7
A.
So it would depend on if he was
8
giving a lecture that day.
9
lecture that day, it could be three or four
10
hours at a time that we saw him.
11
giving a lecture that day, it might be maybe
12
30 minutes out of that Friday that we would see
13
him.
14
If he was giving a
If he wasn't
So it just kind of depended.
Q.
Okay.
On Monday through Thursday if
15
that was one of the days that you saw him
16
during the week, about how long would you two
17
be around each other?
18
A.
Maybe 15 or 20 minutes.
19
Q.
And on that Monday through Thursday
20
when it's about 15 or 20 minutes, were you two
21
alone?
22
A.
Sometimes.
I would say maybe more so
23
in the beginning.
After he started making
24
these comments that made me uncomfortable, I
25
started avoiding trying -- or trying to avoid
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
94
www.integritylegal.support
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 95 of 100 PageID 283
242
I used to be, and then I would be
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
1
A.
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
2
uncomfortable being alone with him for the
3
first maybe five or six minutes until other
4
people started showing up.
5
sometimes wait in the parking lot until I saw
6
other residents starting to walk in the
7
building, and then I would walk in with them so
8
I didn't have to be alone with him.
9
Q.
10
often, right?
11
A.
Not often.
12
Q.
Okay.
So I would
So you weren't alone with him very
And about how long would it
13
take when you guys were standing at the board?
14
About how long would it take until you guys
15
dispersed to your various assigned rooms?
16
A.
Usually only a few minutes.
I would
17
say anywhere from between 3 to 5 minutes.
He
18
would give us a rundown of what he had on his
19
schedule for the day, who was going to leave
20
early, who was going to be assigned the late
21
shift, what duties the late shift was going to
22
be assigned, all that type of stuff.
23
usually was maybe 3 to 5 minutes because he was
24
a very organized board runner.
25
all of that stuff done very quickly.
But it
He could have
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
95
www.integritylegal.support
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 96 of 100 PageID 284
244
So Monday through Thursday -- well,
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
1
Q.
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
2
actually, Monday through Friday, after the
3
didactic sessions ceased, your contact with
4
Dr. Santos was limited to 3 to 5 minutes a day
5
one or two times a week; is that right?
6
A.
That would be if he didn't come into
7
the OR or if he wasn't the attending physician
8
assigned to the OR in which you were working.
9
If you were assigned to the room that he was in
10
charge of, then you would deal with him pretty
11
much all day every day.
12
13
14
Q.
And how often were you assigned to
the room that he was in charge of?
A.
Not often because he made the
15
assignments, and he did not like me.
So he
16
made sure, if there was any way possible, to
17
make an assignment so he did not have to deal
18
with me.
19
Q.
If we go back to Exhibit 8, right
20
here, still talking about Dr. Santos; and you
21
said, "He would curse at me and threaten to
22
kill me."
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
about that.
Let's talk a little bit
Did that happen on more than one
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
96
www.integritylegal.support
1
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 97 of 100 PageID 285
251
delivery or doing nerve blocks or anything of
2
the such.
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
3
Q.
Document 19
Okay.
Filed 11/08/22
Were there times that
4
Dr. Santos was the attending physician assigned
5
to the room where you were assigned?
6
7
8
A.
Yes, ma'am.
On very few occasions,
but there were some.
Q.
So very few occasions.
And on those
9
very few occasions, how much time did the two
10
of you -- would the two of you spend together?
11
A.
There was only one time that he was
12
assigned to the room that he spent any
13
significant amount of time in there.
14
majority of time if he was assigned to my room,
15
he wouldn't even set foot in the room.
16
come in there and tell the nurse to put his
17
name on the chart, but he would not stick in
18
the room for any significant amount of time
19
except once in OR 9.
20
Q.
Okay.
The
He may
And I think you also said
21
that once you were on anesthesia full time,
22
that you'd have contact with Dr. Santos if he
23
was the attending physician assigned to the
24
same room you were in.
25
thing?
And what was the second
You said it had something to do with
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
97
www.integritylegal.support
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
1
the board?
2
A.
Document 19
Yes.
Filed 11/08/22
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 98 of 100 PageID 286
252
If you were in one of the
3
ORs -- I can't remember right now which numbers
4
were close to the anesthesia board; but if you
5
were in one of those rooms, he would pass by
6
the hallway a lot more frequently and come into
7
those rooms.
8
Q.
9
And were you -- how often were you in
a room close to the anesthesia board?
10
A.
I was not put into those rooms very
11
often.
I think it was because he didn't want
12
to deal with me, and he was the one that made
13
the assignments.
14
Q.
And did you have this kind of
15
schedule for the duration of your time at Texas
16
Tech?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
If we come down to the bottom of
19
Exhibit 8, is that your signature?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am, it is.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
And when you signed this
document, did you do it of your own free will?
23
A.
Yes, I did.
24
Q.
Did you feel any pressure at the time
25
that you had to sign it?
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
98
www.integritylegal.support
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
Document 19
Filed 11/08/22
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 99 of 100 PageID 287
253
1
A.
No, ma'am, I did not.
2
Q.
And according to this date here,
3
January 10th, 2020, by this time -- by the time
4
you filled out Exhibit 8, which is your first
5
written complaint of discrimination and
6
harassment, you had already been notified that
7
you were being dismissed from the
8
anesthesiology residency program, right?
9
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
Okay.
How long had you known you
11
were being dismissed from the program when you
12
filled out this complaint?
13
A.
Almost a month.
14
Q.
And before you filled out this
15
complaint, you filed your Notice of Appeal of
16
that dismissal, right?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am, I did.
I only had five
18
days in order to file that notice.
19
to get that filed in the timeframe that I had.
20
21
22
23
Q.
So I needed
When you filled out this complaint,
had you already hired an attorney?
MS. HARRIS:
I'm going to
instruct her not to answer that.
24
MS. BENNETT:
I can ask a
25
question about when she hired an attorney.
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
99
www.integritylegal.support
I'm
Case 5:21-cv-00281-H
1
Document 19
STATE OF TEXAS
2
Filed 11/08/22
Shannon Corbett - 10/4/2022
Page 100 of 100 PageID 288
295
)
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
3
I, DEBBIE D. CUNNINGHAM, CSR, hereby certify that
4
the witness was duly sworn and that this transcript is a
5
true record of the testimony given by the witness.
6
I further certify that I am neither counsel for,
7
related to, nor employed by any of the parties or
8
attorneys in the action in which this proceeding was
9
taken.
10
attorney of record in this cause, nor am I financially
11
or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
12
Further, I am not a relative or employee of any
I further certify that pursuant to FRCP
13
Rule 30(f)(1) that the signature of the deponent was
14
requested by the deponent or a party before the
15
completion of the deposition and that the signature is
16
to be before any notary public and returned within 30
17
days from date receipt of the transcript.
18
the attached Changes and Signature Page contains any
19
changes and the reasons therefore.
20
21
22
23
24
25
If returned,
Subscribed and sworn to by me this day, October 24,
2022.
__________________________________
Debbie D. Cunningham, CSR
Expiration: 6/30/23
INTEGRITY LEGAL SUPPORT SOLUTIONS
9901 Brodie Ln, Ste. 160-400
Austin, Texas 78748
www.integritylegal.support
512-320-8690; FIRM # 528
Integrity Legal Support Solutions
100
www.integritylegal.support