Employee Survival Guide® - S6 Ep126: Physician Burnout: Dr. Alison Schmeck v. Yale University

Episode Date: May 16, 2025

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.The alarming reality of physician burnout has reached crisis levels, with six out of ten doctors now experiencing burnout—up significantly from pre-pandemic numbers. Behind these statistics are real people and real stories that demand our attention.This episode takes a deep dive into the disturbing allegations contained in Dr. Allison Schmeck's legal complaint against Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital. Read a copy of the federal complaint HERE. As a triple board-certified anesthesiologist, Dr. Schmeck's experience reveals the dark underbelly of academic medicine: alleged gender discrimination where female physicians were assigned double the workload of male colleagues, disability discrimination where her disclosed history of depression was labeled as "baggage," and devastating retaliation when she reported unethical practices and requested mental health accommodations.The most heartbreaking aspect of this case is how systemic failures allegedly drove a talented physician to the brink of suicide—making concrete plans including updating her will and arranging for her pets' care. Dr. Schmeck's journey exposes how institutions might weaponize mental health history against physicians who speak up, while simultaneously denying them opportunities granted to less qualified male colleagues. When leadership allegedly defines "positive faculty experience" as making superiors happy rather than supporting staff wellbeing, it reveals fundamental flaws in medical culture.This powerful examination connects one doctor's personal nightmare to nationwide physician mental health statistics, where 80% of doctors acknowledge the stigma preventing them from seeking help. What must change in our medical institutions to protect those who dedicate their lives to healing others? How many talented physicians are we losing to these systemic failures? Listen and consider what responsibility we all share in demanding better for those who care for us at our most vulnerable moments. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Hey, it's Mark here and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about and a lot more. We often admire the dedication of our medical professionals, you know, the long hours they put in. But beneath that surface of tireless service, there can be a really troubling reality. A recent 2024 Physicians Foundation survey revealed that a staggering six out of 10 physicians

are experiencing burnout. Six out of 10, that's huge. It really is. And to put that in perspective, it's a significant jump from the four in 10 we saw back in 2018, you know, before the major pandemic shifts. Right, pre-pandemic. And what's perhaps even more concerning is that over half of physicians report knowing a colleague who is considered attempted or even died by suicide. That's just devastating. These figures really do highlight the immense pressures in the medical

field. They absolutely do. And what complicates this even further, according to that same survey, is the significant stigma surrounding mental health within the medical profession itself. The stigma, yeah. Nearly 80% of physicians agreed that the stigma exists, and it acts as a barrier to seeking help.

So people are suffering but afraid to speak up. Exactly, it can create this really vicious cycle where those who are struggling the most might be, well, least likely to reach out for support. It's against this backdrop that we're going to take a deep dive today. We'll be looking closely at a legal complaint that was recently filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Okay. The plaintiff is Dr. Allison Schmeck. She's an anesthesiologist. And the defendants are Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital.

And this isn't just like a simple disagreement about work hours or something. Dr. Schmeck's complaint outlines a really complex series of allegations. Right, what kind of things are we talking about? Well, these include discrimination based on both sex and disability, as well as claims of illegal retaliation.

Retaliation, okay. And these retaliation claims fall under a number of federal and state laws, things like Title VII, which, you know, generally prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, CFEPA. She also cites the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, which protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination at work, and even Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational programs that get federal funding.

So a whole range of legal grounds there. A whole range. And beyond that, Dr. Schmeck alleges a hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. It's a multifaceted case, really, with a lot to unpack. Exactly. So, to really get to grips with this, we're focusing primarily on the details presented in Dr. Schmeck's legal complaint itself.

Right. That's our main source. And we'll also be kind of referring back to the broader context provided by that 2024 Physicians Foundation survey on physician well-being just to see where these individual allegations might connect to those larger trends we talked about. Make sense, linking the specific case to the bigger picture. Our mission here is basically to understand the sequence of events as Dr. Smick describes them, and to link them to these wider challenges of mental health and workplace issues that physicians seem to be facing nationwide.

Okay, so let's start at the beginning. Dr. Schmeck is a triple board certified anesthesiologist, joined Yale in 2019. According to the complaint, what were her initial experiences like right after she started? Okay, so Dr. Schmeck was recruited to work at the St. Raphael campus or SRC.

That's one of the locations under the Yale New Haven Hospital system. Got it. Interestingly, she had actually disclosed a history of depression during Yale's initial credentialing process. Oh, OK, so they knew about this from the start. Exactly. And this disclosure becomes pretty significant as her allegations unfold later on. Early on at SRC, she claims she experienced discrimination specifically because of her

sex. And this was under the leadership of Dr. Dan Lombardo, who was the division chief there at the time. Okay. Sex-based discrimination. Can you give us some specific examples of what she alleges? What did that look like? Sure.

The complaint details that Dr. Schmeck, along with another female physician, Dr. Nahid Lone, were, well, consistently assigned nearly double the number of patient cases compared to their male colleagues at SRC. Double. Double, yeah. Dr. Schmeck also alleges that Dr. Lombardo would routinely schedule her for operating rooms that started very early on Friday mornings. And this timing, unfortunately, clashed with the departmental grand rounds, which, you know, required academic activity.

Meanwhile, her male colleagues weren't scheduled in a way that would conflict like that. So she's missing out on important academic sessions potentially. Potentially yeah. And furthermore, she states that female physicians were assigned more solo or R shifts, meaning they had less direct supervision from senior colleagues, residents, or CRNAs. Hmm. That definitely suggests a potential pattern, doesn't it? Of bias and how workload and schedules were being managed.

That's what she alleges, yes. The complaint also describes an alleged incident of bullying involving N95 masks. This sounds quite specific to the early pandemic days. It is, yeah. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Schmeck alleges she was bullied by a male colleague, Dr. Jeff Pan. And this situation apparently came up because Dr. Schmeck had personally bought four boxes of Alpha ProTech N95 masks with her own money. Her intention was to give these masks to her mother, who was an OR nurse and was caring for Dr. Schmeck's grandmother, who was ill at the time.

OK, a family situation. Right. Dr. Pan had also apparently acquired his own supply of masks. Dr. Schmeck alleges that Dr. Pan aggressively questioned her about where her masks were. He reportedly told her he'd informed Dr. Lombardo about it and demanded she bring her personal masks in to be shared, even though they were her own private property. Wow. Then, after he'd distributed his own masks, he allegedly started spreading rumors that Dr. Schmeck was hoarding PPE. Hoarding PPE during that time? That's a serious accusation.

Exactly. A really sensitive time. And what was the alleged response from their supervisor, Dr. Lombardo, to this whole situation? Well, Dr. Schmeck claims that despite being aware that Dr. Pan was bullying her, Dr. Lombardo did nothing to intervene or stop it. Nothing. Nothing. Instead, she alleges that Dr. Lombardo actually

acted in a way that protected Dr. Pan. According to the complaint, this lack of action from her supervisor contributed significantly to a hostile work environment for her. Okay, so the alleged discrimination in scheduling and now this bullying incident with no intervention. The complaint also mentions a couple of allegedly concerning comments made by another colleague,

Dr. Rocco Mirando. What were those about? Right, Dr. Schmeck alleges that around the time the sexual harassment allegations against then-Governor Andrew Cuomo were really prominent in the news. I didn't know about that period. Yeah. Dr. Mirando apparently made what she describes as a misogynistic comment to Dr. Lombardo while Dr. Schmeck was present. In this comment, he reportedly criticized women for speaking out against sexual harassment during that time sort of implying hypocrisy

Hmm. Okay, and there was another one. Yes in a separate incident Dr. Schmeck states that during a disagreement over an office desk with a female colleague. Dr. Anisa Kalari Dr. Mirando allegedly told dr. Lombardo again with dr. Schmeck present that this problem could be solved with a small handgun Whoa, that's that's incredibly disturbing to hear in a workplace. Absolutely chilling. So given these experiences that Dr. Schmeck describes at SRC, the workload, the scheduling, the bullying, these comments, it seems like she eventually sought help

or maybe a change, how did that come about? Well, she felt she couldn't report these issues to the former chair, Dr. Roberta Hines. Why not? Because of alleged past responses to sexual harassment claims that were described as basically boys will be boys. Oh dear. So Dr. Schmeck initially reported the situation anonymously. She went to Dr. Darren Lattimore, who was the deputy dean for diversity and inclusion at the time. Okay, anonymously first. Yes. Then later in May 2021, she had a formal meeting with Dr. Trevor Banach, the vice chair of clinical operations,

specifically to report the bullying behavior she'd experienced from Dr. Pan. Right, the mask incident guy. And did this meeting with Dr. Banach lead to any, you know, tangible changes or support for her? Well, following that initial meeting, Dr. Schmeck had a more detailed follow-up call with Dr. Banach. you know, tangible changes or support for her. Well, following that initial meeting, Dr. Schmeck had a more detailed follow-up call

with Dr. Banach. In this call, she elaborated not just on Dr. Lombardo's alleged protection of Dr. Pan, but also on what she described as him enabling a sort of broader pattern of abuse against female staff. So the scheduling and workload stuff again. Exactly, the unequal assignment of workload and scheduling that we discussed earlier. And in response to these reports, Dr. Banach did facilitate a series of meetings for Dr.

Schmeck. These were with Andrea Turillian, who was the director of professionalism, and eventually with Dr. Hines herself, the former chair. Okay, so meetings were set up. What was the reported outcome of those conversations? Dr. Schmeck met with Mrs. Turillian and reportedly expressed her concerns about an impact all of this discriminatory treatment was having on her mental health. Understandable.

But she also conveyed some optimism about the prospect of transferring to the York Street campus or YSC. She was hoping for, you know, a more supportive environment there. A fresh start. That was the hope. And according to her complaint, her meeting with Dr. Hines actually seemed more supportive. Dr. Hines reportedly listened to her concerns and agreed that a transfer away from the situation at SRC

would probably be in the best interest of both Dr. Schmeck and her patients. Okay, so Dr. Hines facilitated the move. Yes, ultimately Dr. Hines facilitated Dr. Schmeck's transfer to the OB anesthesiology division at YSC in August, Dr. Hines facilitated Dr. Schmeck's transfer to the OB Anesthesiology Division at YSC in August 2021. So a move to a different campus within the same hospital system, hoping for that fresh start. But the complaint indicates that the challenges, unfortunately, didn't end there.

They continued at YSC, particularly with the arrival of a new chair, Dr. Lisa Leffert. That's right. Dr. Leffert joined Yale as the new chair of anesthesiology right around the same time Dr. Schmeck made her transfer to YSC. They had an initial introductory meeting in September 2021. And during this meeting, Dr. Schmeck discussed her professional goals, specifically her interest in pursuing a cardiac fellowship in the next academic year. Right.

She wanted to specialize further. Exactly. But Dr. Schmeck soon became concerned about what she perceived as pressure from Dr. Eamon Alien, who was the OB division chief at YSC. Pressure about what? Pressure to get credentialed at Bridgeport Hospital, or BH, even though she had these impending plans for the fellowship. It seemed counterintuitive to her. Okay. And how did Dr. Schmeck address this perceived pressure from Dr. Alien? Well, she reportedly confided in the new chair, Dr. Leffert,

about the pressure she was feeling from Dr. Alien regarding the Bridgeport credentialing. Okay, she went to her new boss. Yes, and she also took that opportunity to disclose the past experiences of abuse that she and other female physicians had allegedly endured while working back at the St. Raphael campus. So she's trying to give her the context. Exactly, trying to explain her background and sensitivities. And it's

maybe relevant here to bring back that Physicians Foundation survey we mentioned. Okay, how so? Well, that survey found that 60% of female physicians thought that changes to medical licensure questions, the ones that stigmatize mental health access, were helpful if they were changed. This suggests a heightened awareness and maybe sensitivity among female physicians, possibly including Dr. Shemak, about disclosing mental health concerns in professional contexts like credentialing. That's a really interesting connection to the survey data.

So she shares this history in her current concerns with Dr. Leffert. The complaint then goes on to describe what sounds like a complicated and really drawn out credentialing process at Bridgeport Hospital anyway, followed by an email exchange in October 2021 that seemed to kind of escalate tensions. What happened there? Yeah, the credentialing process at Bridgeport reportedly

became quite lengthy and confusing for Dr. Schmeck. Then in October 2021, there was this email thread going around about a clinical incident. Dr. Leffert was included on this email chain. And in the middle of this discussion, Dr. Leffert unexpectedly jumped in with a question about Dr. Schmeck's interest in pursuing credentialing at Bridgeport. Wait, even after Dr. Schmeck had confided in her about feeling pressured? Exactly. This inquiry reportedly felt really insensitive

to Dr. Schmeck, especially given her recent confidential disclosures to Dr. Leffert about the pressure from Dr. Alien and her past experiences at SRC. It seemed like it ignored everything she'd shared. Oof, OK. And how did Dr. Schmeck respond to this seemingly poorly timed email? Well, Dr. Schmeck replied to Dr. Leffert's email

with a brief and maybe somewhat terse no thanks. And she added that she was just tired of the whole credentialing process. Understandable maybe given the circumstances. Perhaps, but this brief response reportedly did not sit well with Dr. Leffert. She then demanded that Dr. Schmeck attend a meeting with her and Ms. Terillian, the professionalism director, and accuse Dr. Schmeck of behaving unprofessionally in her email

reply. Wow. From no thanks to unprofessionalism. That sounds like a significant shift in their interaction. What reportedly took place during that meeting in October? During that meeting, Dr. Schmeck alleges that Dr. Leffert just dismissed her concerns about the harassment she had experienced. Dismissed them how?

Dr. Leffert reportedly drew a comparison to her own experience with a medical malpractice case where she felt unfairly targeted. And she apparently suggested to Dr. Schmeck that she should essentially, and this is a quote alleged in the complaint, just accept workplace harassment and move on. Just accept it and move on. That's quite a thing to Dr. Schmeck that she should essentially, and this is a quote alleged in the complaint, just accept workplace harassment and move on. Just accept it and move on. That's quite a thing to say. It is. And following this exchange, Ms. Terillian, who was also there, just gave Dr. Schmeck contact information for the Employee Assistance Program, EAP, without offering any further explanation or context.

Just here's the EAP info. Pretty much. And subsequently, Dr. Schmeck claims that she was assigned a significantly more rigorous work schedule compared to her colleagues within the OB anesthesia division at YSC. So potentially retaliation for pushing back or expressing concern?

That's what seems to be alleged. The complaint then goes on to detail further alleged issues scheduling and the denial of specific requests that Dr. Schmeck made in early 2022. This appears to continue a pattern of what she's describing as difficult working conditions. Okay, what kind of scheduling issues? Yes. So, between January and May of 2022, Dr. Schmeck reportedly asked to be assigned to 24-hour

weekday call shifts. Why that specific request? Her rationale was that this would help minimize the number of weekend workdays she'd have to cover, you know, try to get some more consolidated time off. Makes sense. Was it granted? No, this request was ultimately denied. And as a result, the complaint states that Dr. Schmeck had only three weekends off during

a five-month period. Three weekends in five months. That's brutal. Brutal and frequently on-call. The complaint specifically contrasts this with the situation of a new male graduate, Dr. Dylan Schaeffer. Okay, what happened with him? Dr. Schaeffer allegedly requested and was granted the assignment of 24-hour call shifts, apparently to avoid losing a particular clinical unit. Wait, so he got the exact kind of schedule she had asked for

and been denied? That's the allegation, yes. A type of scheduling arrangement she had requested and was denied but allegedly granted to a newer male colleague. Okay, the relationship between Dr. Schmeck and Dr. Leffert seems to have become increasingly strained during this period then. The complaint mentions an observation of Dr. Schmeck in February 2022, followed by a meeting request initiated by Dr. Schmeck herself. What was the context there? Right. In February 2022, Dr. Leffer reportedly observed Dr. Schmeck while she was working in the OB unit. Following this observation, Dr. Leffer allegedly expressed dissatisfaction with how the workload was being divided among the team.

However, according to the complaint, Dr. Leffer was apparently unaware that the specific roles and responsibilities within the OB unit were actually formally divided and assigned by Dr. Allian, the OB division chief. Let's take a quick break. It's Mark, and we have a new product for you. It's called the Employee Survival Guide or Employeesurvival.com. And it's a site that you can obtain PDF products

that I created myself. I was spending too many hours, way too many, researching and writing about, for example, the performance improvement plan or beating them. And the second one about negotiating severance negotiation agreements, two of the most important topics that we see in terms of the web traffic and podcast traffic we have.

So check out employeesurvival.com and see if this can try to help you and you don't need an attorney to use it. Thank you. So she's criticizing something she doesn't fully understand the basis of? That's the implication. Then, in March 2022, Dr. Schmeck requested a meeting with Dr. Leffert. The stated purpose was to discuss what Dr. Schmeck described as the exhaustive and unsafe

OB schedule that was in place under Dr. Kristin Fardelman's direction, but ultimately overseen by Dr. Alien. So she's raising safety concerns about the schedule. Yeah. And how did Dr. Leffert allegedly respond this time? Well, Dr. Schmeck alleges that when she brought up the topic of the OB schedule, Dr. Leffert just refused to engage in a discussion about it. Refused again.

Refused. Instead, Dr. Leffert reportedly abruptly changed the subject of the meeting and then falsely accused Dr. Schmeck of not adequately performing her job duties. Wow. So avoids the issue and attacks her performance. That's the claim. And over the course of the following year, Dr. Schmeck claims that Dr. Leffert consistently dismissed her various concerns, often insinuating that these concerns were stemming from underlying mental health issues. Bring up mental health again as a way to dismiss her concerns.

That's what Dr. Schmeck alleges. She reportedly felt her concerns weren't being heard or taken seriously, especially given her prior negative experiences at SRC and the emerging similar issues she felt she was encountering with Dr. Alien in the OB division at YSC. Right. It sounds like history repeating itself for her. The complaint also details a specific meeting in March 2022 where Dr. Schmeck wanted to talk specifically about Dr. Alien's behavior and management style.

What reportedly happened then? In that March 2022 meeting, Dr. Schmeck alleges that Dr. Leffert just didn't allow her the opportunity to express her concerns about Dr. Alien. Cut her down again. Pretty much. Instead of addressing those concerns, Dr. Leffert reportedly accused Dr. Schmeck of having poor communication skills. Hmm.

Passing the blame. And the complaint also points out that Dr. Schmeck wasn't alone in experiencing difficulties with Dr. Alien. It cites an example where another colleague, Dr. Mukader Ozkan, had actually requested to be excused from taking OB call shifts because of challenging interactions with him. So there's maybe some corroboration there that others found him difficult. Potentially, yes.

Okay, shifting focus slightly. Dr. Schmeck had these professional aspirations in cardiac anesthesiology. How were those career goals reportedly received and addressed by Dr. Leffert? Well, Dr. Schmeck had expressed her request to be considered for a position within the cardiac anesthesiology division after she completed her planned cardiac fellowship. That seems like a logical next step. It does. However, according to the complaint, Dr. Leffert allegedly misrepresented the status of the cardiac division. She stated that it was oversubscribed and that there were no foreseeable job openings for fellows completing their training. Oversubscribed no openings. That sounds pretty definitive.

It does. Discouraging, especially for someone planning their career post-fellowship. Definitely. The complaint then describes a period of escalating concerns and the initiation of formal complaints by Dr. Schmeck. This feels like a significant turning point in the whole narrative. It really is. In April 2022, Dr. Schmeck sent an email to Dr. Leffert where she clearly expressed her feelings of being mistreated by Dr. Alien and also of being consistently ignored by Dr. Leffert when she tried to address these issues. Okay, putting it in writing. Yes. She described the whole communication process as burdensome, stressful, and disheartening. This email reportedly led to a subsequent meeting

that involved both Dr. Leffert and Dr. Robert Orabah, who was the deputy dean at the time. Okay, so the deputy dean is involved now. What were the key concerns that Dr. Schmeck raised during this meeting with both of them? Dean is involved now. What were the key concerns that Dr. Schmeck raised during this meeting with both of them? In that meeting, Dr. Schmeck raised significant concerns about potential retaliation from Dr. Alien. She cited specific instances where she had allegedly witnessed his vindictive behavior towards other colleagues. Like who? Examples given were a CRNA named Christy Hickman and another physician, Dr. Satrajit Bose. Furthermore, Dr. Schmeck

reported a potential ethical violation involving Dr. Alien. She alleged that he was directing an OB anesthesia fellow, Dr. Pedro Acevedo, to enroll patients in his research studies even when those patients were refusing to participate. Whoa, enrolling refusing patients? That's a major ethical red flag. Huge. Dr. Schmeck also mentioned she'd had prior communication about Dr. Alien's alleged unethical research practices with someone else, Dr. Lars Helgeson, who had reportedly raised these

concerns with Dr. Leffert before he left his position. So Leffert might have heard about this before. That's the implication in the complaint. And in addition to all that, Dr. Schmeck raised concerns about Dr. Alien's financial relationship with the company that produces Xperyl, a pain medication. Okay, a financial tie. Yes. She alleged that his mandatory use of tap locks with Xperyl on all C-section patients wasn't necessarily best practice, and that this practice raised ethical questions because of his undisclosed financial connection to the company making the drug. Wow. So vindictive behavior, potential research ethics violations, potential financial conflicts of interest. These are incredibly serious concerns she's bringing forward. Absolutely. Very serious.

The complaint also touches upon a specific disagreement about hospital policy, namely whether patients should wear bras during C-section procedures. Seems a bit specific, but what was the issue there? Yes. Dr. Schmeck raised concerns related to patient safety regarding this policy. She argued that allowing patients to wear bras during C-sections could potentially impede surgical access, increase the risk of contamination, and maybe create difficulties during intubation if that became necessary.

Okay, so patient safety arguments. Right. And to support her concerns, she referenced medical literature advocating for undergarment removal for safety in these procedures. Dr. Alien reportedly confronted Dr. Schmeck about her stance on this policy right there on the labor floor. Confronted her? How?

Dr. Schmeck felt his tone during this confrontation was suggestive and inappropriate, possibly implying she was gay and looking at patients breasts. Oh, that's completely out of line, if true. Highly inappropriate. And the interaction reportedly escalated beyond just a disagreement on clinical policy. Escalated how? According to the complaint, Dr. Schmeck felt physically threatened by Dr. Alien during this discussion. According to the complaint, Dr. Schmeck felt physically threatened by Dr. Alien during this discussion. She mentioned the policy at Mount Sinai Hospital about removing undergarments for safety as a reference point.

OK. Dr. Alien allegedly reacted with significant anger, reportedly clenching his fists and yelling at her something like, why you bring that here? Flinch fists. Yelling. That sounds genuinely frightening. Extremely unsettling. Following this interaction, Dr. Schmeck sent an email to Dr. Leffert requesting that she

never be required to meet with Dr. Alien alone again. She also noted that other faculty members had apparently also requested advocates during their meetings with him. So again, suggesting others had issues too. The complaint then goes on to describe what Dr. Schmeck alleges was continued retaliation against her after raising all these concerns. What form did this retaliation reportedly take? Well, in May 2022, Dr. Schmeck alleges an incident where Dr. Alian relieved only a male colleague, Dr. Antonio Gonzalez-Feal, from their shift early, even though Dr. Schmeck had also finished her

assigned work. So, letting the male colleague go early, even though Dr. Schmeck had also finished her assigned work. So letting the male colleague go early, but not her. Right. She interpreted this as preferential treatment, another example of bias. Shortly after that, in July 2022, Dr. Schmeck began her one-year academic leave to pursue her cardiac fellowship. This leave included an extension of her initial employment term at Yale. Okay, so she goes off for her fellowship. Following the completion of that fellowship, Dr. Schmeck's interactions with Dr. Leffert seemed to deteriorate even further based on the complaint.

Can you outline some of the key moments during that period when she's thinking about coming back? Sure. There was a meeting in December 2022. Dr. Schmeck expressed her interest in returning to Yale after her fellowship, which was going well. Right. However, she also indicated her preference returning to Yale after her fellowship, which was going well. Right. However, she also indicated her preference not to go immediately back to the OB division. She expressed interest in working in other areas, especially cardiac anesthesiology,

which she was now specializing in. That makes sense, given her fellowship and her past experiences in OB. It does, but Dr. Schmeck alleges that Dr. Leffert displayed hostility towards her during this meeting. Dr. Leffert reportedly downplayed Dr. Schmeck's past concerns about the OB scheduling, even comparing them to her own personal experiences during pregnancy. Minimizing her concerns again. That's the allegation. Dr. Schmeck reiterated her desire to avoid OB due to the scheduling issues and the ongoing

problems she had had with both Dr. Alien and Dr. Leffert. And Leffert's response. In response, Dr. Leffert allegedly made what Dr. Schmeck described as a bizarre comment, stating that she understood Dr. Schmeck didn't like being in the operating room. Didn't like the OR, but she just did a cardiac fellowship, which is heavily OR-based. Exactly. It directly contradicted Dr. Schmeck's choice of fellowship. Dr. Leffert also allegedly stated smugly multiple times, well, you're here asking me for a job. Apparently dismissing a previous assurance Dr. Schmeck felt she had from Dr. Hines about her position.

Wow, really rubbing it in. And ultimately, Dr. Leffert stated that they would, quote, revisit the idea of you going back to OB next December 2023, pushing her back towards OB despite her objections. That does not sound like a very welcoming or supportive environment for someone returning with new valuable skills from a demanding fellowship. Not according to this account, no. The complaint then details a formal notification regarding only a one-year term of employment and an alleged

comment about baggage. This sounds particularly concerning, especially given the context of Dr. Schmeck's previously disclosed mental health history. Yes, absolutely. In a meeting that took place in January 2023 involving Dr. Leffert, Dr. Michael Ankuda, and Judith Ahern, Dr. Schmeck was formally informed she would only be offered a one-year term. Just one year. Was there a reason given? It was reportedly contingent on her demonstrating a more positive faculty experience during that year. A positive faculty experience. That sounds incredibly vague and subjective. It does. And it was during this same meeting that Dr. Leffert allegedly referred to Dr. Schmick's mental health history as baggage. Called her mental health baggage.

That's the allegation. And reportedly told her repeatedly that she should go somewhere else to work. This is a really significant allegation as it directly references her mental health, which remember she had disclosed way back during initial credentialing. Right. That feels like it could cross a line into discriminatory territory. And the difficulties in communication and this strained relationship, they seem to have persisted into February 2023.

That's right. Further meetings reportedly occurred where Dr. Leffert allegedly dismissed Dr. Schmeck's past concerns about the OB scheduling from the previous year. She apparently falsely attributed those concerns to a personal vacation Dr. Schmeck had taken in June for a fertility procedure. Blaming it on her vacation. Yes. Dr. Leffert also allegedly accused Dr. Schmeck of being the common problem and the difficulties she'd experienced both back at SRC and now at Decker Alien at YSC. So it's all her fault, essentially. That's the message Dr. Schmeck says she received. She recounts feeling this growing mistrust towards Dr. Leffert due to what she perceived as insincerity, lies, verbal abuse, discrimination, manipulation, and false accusations.

Just a complete breakdown of trust. Completely. And the alleged comment by Dr. Leffert about Dr. Schmeck being one or two standard deviations from normal in her behavior reportedly resurfaced around this time. That comment again. Yes. And Dr. Leffert also made what Dr. Schmeck described as a strange request for a safe word to use during their interactions.

A safe word, like in therapy. It sounds very unusual for a chair-faculty relationship. Dr. Schmeck apparently responded lightheartedly with squirrel. She also reiterated, again, the limited number of weekends off she'd had in 2022, while Dr. Leffert allegedly disputed the facts and, again, blamed her June vacation. Just not accepting the reality of the schedule issue. Seemingly not, according to the complaint. The formal written notice of the one-year term was then reportedly received by Dr. Schmeck in March 2023. How did she react to getting that officially in writing? Well, following the receipt of the formal notice, Dr. Schmeck sent an email to Dr. Leffert

directly questioning the decision not to renew her contract for a longer period or more permanently. In this email, she specifically mentioned the significant burnout she had experienced due to the alleged bullying and the demanding work schedule she'd endured. Connecting it directly to the treatment she received. Yes. Another meeting then took place in March 2023. This was requested by Dr. Leffert, even though Dr. Schmick had asked to postpone it because she had board exams coming up.

Pushing for a meeting despite exams. Apparently. According to the complaint, this meeting lacked a clear agenda and again resulted in Dr. Leffert allegedly dismissing Dr. Schmeck's attempts to resolve the ongoing issues. And again, insinuating her concerns were related to mental health problems. The same pattern again. Yes. Dr. Leffert also allegedly accused Dr. Schmeck of insulting her job and falsely claimed that Dr. Schmeck had said Dr. Leffert was out to get her, a statement which Dr. Schmeck denies ever making.

It sounds like that March meeting was pretty contentious. What else reportedly occurred during that interaction? Well, Dr. Schmeck alleges that Dr. Leffert essentially turned the focus of the meeting around, accusing Dr. Schmeck of not listening to her. Accusing her of not listening. Right. Dr. Leffert then reportedly pressured Dr. Schmeck to discuss her career development plans only to immediately pivot and demand that Dr. Schmeck repeat everything that Dr. Leffert had just said during the conversation.

Demanded she repeat it back, like a test. It sounds like it. Dr. Schmeck states that she did repeat it back following this meeting dr Schmeck followed up by providing her work schedule yet again as Evidence of the limited time off she had actually experienced still trying to prove the facts about the schedule Oh, okay. So after completing her cardiac fellowship in June 2023 with reportedly Stellar feedback dr. Schmeck returned to the faculty But she was placed in the DAMA

division, not cardiac. How did that happen? Right. In June 2023, Dr. V.G. Kurup, the division chief of DAMA, emailed Dr. Schmeck requesting a meeting to discuss division expectations and opportunities. However, Dr. Schmeck reports that multiple attempts to actually schedule this meeting with Dr. Kurup were subsequently canceled by Dr. Kuruppp's medical department, which is a medical department that is responsible for the This was despite her clear desire to work in cardiac. The division Dr. Leffert had allegedly misrepresented as having no openings. Right, the oversubscribed division. Exactly.

Dr. Leffert's decision to put her in DAMA for just that one year term remained unclear, even after Dr. Schmeck asked for clarification. And due to her ongoing health concerns and the potential for retaliation, Dr. Schmeck made the decision not to return to the OB division at all. Understandable. And adding to the communication issues, Dr. Kerp ended up canceling their rescheduled July 2023 meeting as well. This sounds incredibly frustrating.

The complaint then describes Dr. Schmeck requesting an accommodation and the emergence of even more conflict with the department leadership. This feels like another really critical foes. It absolutely is. In August, 2023, Dr. Leffert requested yet another meeting, this time involving Dr. Roarbaugh, the deputy dean again. Okay. In response, Dr. Schmeck also requested a separate meeting

just with Dr. Roarbaugh. Why separate? Her stated purpose was to discuss Dr. Leffert's alleged pattern of gaslighting and ridicule, her own deteriorating mental health, and her desperate need to focus on her personal well-being. Laying it all out for the deputy dean. Yes. And in her communication with Dr. Roarbaugh, she outlined what she called healthy boundaries for any future interactions with Dr. Leffert.

Healthy boundaries? Like what? Things like expecting respect, thoughtful communication, focusing on facts, direct communication, having some control over meeting topics, not having the story changed on her, and importantly, no more solo meetings with Dr. Leffert without a witness. Setting clear terms for interaction.

Trying to, yes. During her meeting with Dr. Roerbaugh, Dr. Smect disclosed her exhaustion, her burnout, her depression, and this feeling of being constantly gaslighted by Dr. Rohrabah, Dr. Smek disclosed her exhaustion, her burnout, her depression, and this feeling of being constantly gaslighted by Dr. Leffert. She stated her primary goal for the year was just to prioritize her wellness and, quote, to figure out what it is to be happy again, asserting that she would choose to suffer no longer because of Dr. Leffert. Wow. That's a powerful statement. What was Deputy Dean Roarbaugh's reported response to these very serious and personal

disclosures? Well, Dr. Roarbaugh reportedly agreed with her assessment, stating that she had been quote, suffering at Yale for quite some time. So he acknowledged your suffering. He did, apparently. And he suggested she utilize the Employee Assistance Program, the EAP. Following this, a required meeting took place in August 2023 that included Dr. Leffert, Dr. Rohrabah, and Dr. Schmeck.

During this meeting, Dr. Schmeck formally requested an accommodation for her mental health and overall well-being. She reiterated that her priority for the year was wellness and stepping back from departmental activities causing undue pressure. So formally requesting accommodation now. But it sounds like Dr. Leffert's reaction to this request was less than supportive based on the complaint. Yes, Dr. Schmeck notes a really stark contrast.

She points out that Dr. Leffert had previously expressed this profound interest in her career development. But this apparent interest seemed to completely shift to hostility after Dr. Schmeck raised concerns about OB. During the meeting where Dr. Schmeck requested accommodation, Dr. Roarbaugh asked her to discuss her academic and career interests, despite her clearly stated mental health focus.

Pushing academics even when she's asking for mental health accommodation. That's what's alleged. And Dr. Schmeck alleges that Dr. Leffert behaved disrespectfully while Dr. Roarbaugh was reading out the list of healthy boundaries Dr. Schmeck had proposed. Disrespectfully how? At one point, allegedly pretending to swat a fly

in a dismissive manner while the boundaries were being read. Swatting a fly? Seriously? That's the allegation. Dr. Leffert then demanded concrete examples of problematic behavior. When Dr. Schmeck cited the baggage comment as a specific example related to her mental health... The comment from the January meeting. Exactly. Dr. Leffert reportedly accused her of speaking in soundbites.

Dismissing the example she provided when asked for one. It seems that way. Dr. Schmeck further alleges that Dr. Leffert verbally threatened her career and then immediately pivoted right back to pushing her to discuss career growth, all while continuing to refuse to support her cardiac interests or allow her to work in that division. Threatening her career, then asking about growth? That's confusing and sounds coercive. The complaint states the series of interactions reportedly led to Dr. Schmeck becoming uncontrollably

tearful and just unable to continue responding. Completely overwhelmed. The difficulties then seem to have extended to Dr. Korup, the Domine Division chief as well, in October 2023. Yes, in an October 2023 meeting, Dr. Korup allegedly pressed Dr. Schmeck extensively about her research interests. This was despite Dr. Schmeck's formal accommodation request to prioritize wellness and focus on clinical work, not academic pursuits at that time.

Adam Chapnick Ignoring the accommodation again. Dr. Kirsten Kroemer That's the claim. Dr. Schmeck reported that Dr. Kurup displayed clear displeasure with her lack of immediate focus on research and aggressively demanded a discussion on this topic three separate times during the meeting, even though Dr. Schmeck felt unprepared and had other priorities related to her well-being. Pressuring her despite the accommodation. And following the meeting, Dr. Kurup sent Dr. Schmeck an email accusing her of a lack of teamwork and falsely claiming that Dr. Schmeck hadn't wanted to meet with her at all.

Another accusation. Yes. Dr. Schmeck clarified in her response that she wasn't unwilling to meet, but she didn't want to discuss academic ambitions right then due to her approved accommodation, but would be willing later. Trying to set boundaries again. Exactly. Dr. Schmeck also noted that being pressured about academic interests felt particularly

antagonistic given the lack of support she was getting from Dr. Leffert, who had blocked her from the cardiac division while hiring less experienced male physicians, Dr. Jose Duarte and Dr. Zach Sosonski, into those very roles. Right, the division that was supposedly oversubscribed. The very same. Following this interaction with Dr. Kurup, Dr. Schmeck emailed Dr. Roarbaugh again, expressing her feeling of being pressured towards academic productivity, which was compromising her ability to focus on her well-being as per her approved accommodation.

Documenting the pressure again. The culmination of all these reported events was, ultimately, the non-renewal of Dr. Schmeck's employment contract. How did this final decision unfold in December, 2023? Well, Dr. Schmeck reports experiencing further difficulties just scheduling another meeting with Dr. Leffert in December, 2023, despite offering a flexible schedule. Dr. Leffert reportedly accused her

of making it difficult to arrange a meeting. Flipping it back on her again. Seems to be the pattern alleged. In their meeting that finally happened in December 2023, Dr. Leffert informed Dr. Schmeck that her employment term would not be renewed. And the reason given this time? The sole reason cited, according to the complaint, was Dr. Schmeck's interactions with her superiors. Interactions with superiors. Still vague.

Very vague. And the October meeting with Dr. Kurup was specifically mentioned as the only concrete incident supporting this decision. The meeting where she tried to uphold her accommodation. Precisely. Dr. Leffert allegedly falsely accused Dr. Schmeck of making it hard to meet Dr. Kurup and of refusing to discuss Kurup's preferred topics during that meeting, completely disregarding

the accommodation. Dr. Leffert then defined that positive faculty experience requirement. The vague term from before. Yes. She defined it as Dr. Schmeck creating a positive experience specifically for her superiors. Wow. So it's not about her experience, it's about making her bosses feel good. That's the interpretation presented. Dr. Roarbaugh, who was also present, allegedly reinforced the idea that the academic mission of the institution took precedence over faculty well-being. Mission over people.

And in a particularly telling moment, Dr. Leffert reportedly acknowledged this isn't healthy and suggested that Dr. Schmeck would likely be better suited in a more supportive environment elsewhere. Acknowledging it's unhealthy while apparently contributing to it, that's quite something. It is striking. It's also striking that despite these alleged issues with her superiors, the complaint specifically highlights positive feedback Dr. Schmeck consistently received from residents about her teaching and clinical work throughout 2023 and 2024.

Yes, the complaint really emphasizes that. Consistently positive reviews from residents on her teaching and clinical skills during that whole period. So good at the core job, allegedly. Right. Dr. Schmeck alleges the decision to terminate her was actually retaliation for requesting accommodation

for her mental health and for reporting what she believed were unsafe and unethical practices. Retaliation, plain and simple, is the claim. Yes. She also points to her enrollment in a second fellowship aimed at advancing her career in cardio-obstetric anesthesiology as more evidence that the non-renewal was discriminatory, not based on legitimate performance issues. Showing continued commitment to her field. Exactly. And notably, she alleges there was no formal performance improvement plan put in place

before the non-renewal, and that Dr. Leffert's newly defined metric of a positive faculty experience was just vague and subjective, maybe even created after the fact. Right. Following the notification of non-renewal, Dr. Schmuck reportedly pursued formal complaints within the university system. What was the outcome of those efforts? Did anything come of them? Well, she submitted a formal complaint against Dr. Leffert to Dean Nancy Brown in January 2024, detailing all these issues.

Okay. Following this, Dr. Leffert allegedly sent an email that Dr. Schmeck interpreted as an attempt to solidify years of gaslighting. Leffert stated she had struggled to engage with Dr. Schmeck constructively. Which Dr. Schmeck saw as more denial. Exactly, a pattern of denial and deflection in Dr. Schmeck's view. In her complaint, Dr. Schmeck described Dr. Leffert's actions as creating an emotionally abusive and hostile work environment that led her to question her own self-worth and, tragically, to experience suicidal ideation and actually begin planning.

It reached that point. Devastating. Truly. She alleges Leffert consistently deflected responsibility and normalized what Dr. Schmeck considered abusive behavior. After a meeting with Dean Brown in January 2024, Dr. Schmeck ultimately withdrew her complaint from the School of Medicine in February 2024. Why withdraw it? Due to concerns about potential leaks that could damage her professional reputation further. She then resubmitted the complaint to the University Provost, Scott Strobel. Okay, moving it up the chain. The final months of Dr. Schmeck's employment at Yale sound like they were just incredibly difficult and emotionally charged based on these details.

They certainly seem to have been. In February 2024, following what she described as critical emails she sent and a patient safety report she filed, which Dr. Leffert apparently initially agreed with but later termed scathing, Dr. Leffert placed Dr. Schmeck on administrative leave for the remainder of her one-year term. Placed on leave after filing a safety report. That's the timing alleged. During this leave period, Dr. Schmeck learned that Dr. Zach Sosanski, a male physician,

a recent graduate, had been hired into the cardiac division. The oversubscribed division with no openings? Exactly, directly contradicting Dr. Leffert's previous claims. The complaint then details Dr. Schmeck's descent into severe suicidal ideation and the act of preparation she began making.

Preparations? Like what? Updating her will, canceling credit cards, organizing important documents, leaving notes, making arrangements for her cats to go to Canada, even booking a hotel room. Oh my goodness, she was making concrete plans. Very concrete plans. She had also planned to send an automatic email detailing her experiences to Yale leadership, faculty, residents, the wider OB anesthesia community, accrediting bodies like ACGME, professional societies like SOAP and ASA, and various news agencies. The final message.

It seems that way. Her final day of employment at Yale was June 30th, 2024. After her departure, she learned that Dr. Jose Duarte, another male physician, a former resident, had also been hired into the cardiac division in the fall of 2024. So two male hires into the division she wanted and was told was full.

Two male hires, yes. Dr. Schmeck further alleges that Dr. Leffert attempted to damage her future career prospects by communicating negative information about her to Danbury Hospital in July 2024. Trying to affect her next job. That's the allegation. And in response to a complaint filed with the CHRO, the Chief Human Resources Officer, Dr.

Schmeck claims that Dr. Leffert actually changed the stated reason for her non-renewal. Changed it from what to what? From the vague interactions with superiors to professionalism. Professionalism. But you said there were no prior disciplinary actions. Exactly. Despite the absence of any prior disciplinary actions or performance improvement plans during her employment. Finally, Dr. Schmeck alleges that Dr. Leffert was essentially projecting her own negative traits onto her. It's just...

It's impossible to hear these deeply troubling details without reflecting back on those alarming statistics about physician burnout and mental health that we started with. Absolutely. The narrative presented in this complaint, I mean, it sadly aligns all too well with those high rates of burnout and the prevalence of suicidal thoughts reported in the Physicians Foundation survey. And the survey is finding that nearly 80% of physicians agree there's a significant stigma

around mental health care in the profession. That could be directly relevant to Dr. Schmeck's experience, you know, any potential hesitation she might have had in openly discussing her struggles or seeking formal support earlier on. Right, the fear of being seen as having baggage. Precisely. Furthermore, the survey indicated that over half of physicians believe their workplace rarely or never implements evidence-based well-being solutions, and a large majority

feel that reducing administrative burdens would really help their mental health. Dr. Schmeck's alleged experiences certainly seem to underscore the presence of systemic pressures and, well, a perceived lack of adequate support within this specific academic medical center. This has been a truly detailed and frankly a very disturbing account of the allegations laid out in Dr. Schmeck's legal complaint. Just to bring it all together for a moment, she alleges this sustained pattern of discrimination based on her sex, starting at St. Raphael campus, continuing after her transfer to York Street. This was reportedly compounded by disability discrimination

related to her previously disclosed history of depression. She further claims she faced retaliation, serious retaliation, for reporting these issues and for raising concerns about patient safety and ethical practices. Right. The retaliation seems key. And this alleged retaliation ultimately culminated in the non-renewal of her employment contract. All of this occurring, she says, within a work environment that she describes as hostile and emotionally abusive, which had a profound and just devastating impact on her overall well-being.

A truly harrowing account. And as we've discussed, this very personal account unfolds against that backdrop of a well-documented national crisis of physician burnout and the significant stigma still associated with seeking help for mental health challenges within the medical profession itself. That's a really comprehensive and important summary of the core allegations here. And reflecting on all of this, it truly compels you, doesn't it, to consider the broader implications for the entire medical community? It really does. How can academic medical institutions, places like Yale, truly cultivate a culture of safety and mutual respect? I mean, how do we

create environments where physicians feel genuinely supported in their mental health and feel empowered to raise legitimate concerns about safety, about ethics, about treatment, without that fear of negative repercussions or, you know, serious professional damage. Yeah, what needs to change systemically. Exactly. What fundamental systemic changes are truly necessary within these high-pressure academic settings to effectively address the serious issues

highlighted in Dr. Shemek's case and those that are echoed consistently in these national well-being surveys of physicians. These are absolutely critical questions that demand serious sustained attention. They really do. And for anyone listening who wants to maybe explore these issues further, perhaps looking into the work of organizations dedicated specifically to physician well-being and mental health could be a valuable starting point.

There are groups doing important work in this area. That's a good suggestion. Yeah. This deep dive into Dr. Schmeck's allegations, I think it provides a stark and really sobering glimpse into a complex situation, one with deeply significant implications, not just for the individual involved, Dr. Schmeck herself, but really for the wider medical community as a whole. It raises questions we all need to be thinking about.

If you like the Employee Survival Guide, I'd really encourage you to leave a review. We try really hard to produce information to you that's informative, that's timely, that you can actually use and solve problems on your own and at your employment. So if you'd like to leave a review anywhere you listen to our podcast, please do so.

And leave five stars because anything less than five is really not as good, right? I'll keep it up. I'll keep the standards up. I'll keep the information flowing at you. If you'd like to send me an email and ask me a question, I'll actually review it and post it on there. You can send it to mcaru at capclaw.com. That's capclaw.com.