Some major demands appear to be dropped… at least for now.
I made the pilgrimage to Frankfort this afternoon. A lot has happened since my last dip into the legal documents of this case. There were thousands of pages to review but at 25 cents per copy, I had to fall back on taking photographs of the most recent 1600 pages. There was a court hearing only yesterday! A summary of that session is attached. It looks like the otherwise short hearing was interrupted by some off-the-record discussion between the parties. The index to the video of the court proceedings attributes to Judge Wingate that “what remains in this case is the issue of the amount of the reimbursement that needs to be paid from Norton. This should be able to be taken care of through mediation.” Additionally, “The hearing on the 18th is not needed. The parties should continue in the discovery process.”
The hearing on the March 18 was supposed to deal with the initial 2013 request by Norton for a judicial determination that UofL had no basis to claim that the Letter of Intent with the University of Kentucky to cooperate over children’s healthcare represented a breach in the lease for the state-owned land on which Norton Kosair Hospital sits. UofL had threatened to displace Norton from its hospital presumably to be replaced by some manifestation of the UofL/KentuckyOne partnership.
I could only read along superficially as I photographed, but the gist of it is that both sides have withdrawn some of their major claims and that the remaining dispute is mostly about money. Some months ago, Norton had already withdrawn its claim that it had reached a binding oral agreement with UofL over a new affiliation agreement. Yesterday, UofL withdrew its objection to the offending Letter of Intent between Norton and UK, at least for the purposes of this litigation or for the time being. UofL also withdrew its claim that a breach in the land lease would require Norton to turn the hospital over to UofL. This seemingly narrows the scope of the remaining litigation significantly.
Is there reason for hope?
I hope that this represents good news, but animosity and distrust have been obvious, and discovery and litigation continue. It will take saintly efforts for the parties to work closely together again. The Office of the Attorney General has been, and is likely to be an active participant. I understand that there remain unsettled active legal battles over the authority and scope of a Special Master Commissioner, over the scope and confidentiality of disclosures, and most certainly over other matters. A subpoena has been issued for Catholic Health Initiatives to disclose its role in the dispute. Because all I have are photographic images of the documents, it will take me a while to process and wade through them. Not all the material in the pleadings and exhibits is flattering. There will be a price to pay for this litigation beyond what I assume will be millions of dollars in legal fees, and there is a part of me that does not want to fan the flames.
Undoubtedly additional facts and clarifications will become available but I want to be optimistic. What transpires will reveal whether I or anyone has a reason to remain that way.
Peter Hasselbacher, MD
President, KHPI
Emeritus Professor of Medicine, UofL
March 3, 2014