The complaint is lodged
After returning from a trip in January 2017, Dr. Matt Seaman was sifting through a stack of mail when he discovered a letter from the WMC. The note described a patient complaint against Dr. Matt Seaman alleging that he failed to properly evaluate a patient’s injuries following a fall from a horse and that he discharged the patient without adequate treatment. The patient later went to another ED where she was diagnosed with three left-side pelvic fractures, an elbow fracture, and a wrist fracture, according to commission documents.
The commission requested a response from Dr. Matt Seaman about the incident, which had occurred 2 years prior. At the time, Dr. Matt Seaman no longer worked at Kittitas Valley Community Hospital, where the visit took place. On Jan. 11, 2017, he drove to the hospital to review the chart from the patient encounter, but he was denied access to the record and informed by staff that "an attorney could access the chart, but a physician could not," according to his written reply to the commission. As a result, he was forced to respond to the commission by memory, Dr. Linda Seaman said.
The fact-finding and questions continued for more than a year and culminated in a hearing. Dr. Matt Seaman thought that the commission's process was biased and that the medical expert retained to review the complaint was not credible, Dr. Linda Seaman said. Her husband disagreed that his care was substandard. During his evaluation of the patient, Dr. Matt Seaman ordered multiple X-rays in the areas of pain and injury, which he and the radiologist on-call interpreted as normal, according to Dr. Linda Seaman. He prescribed pain medications and advised follow-up if pain continued. During the patient's subsequent ED visit 2 days later, left-side fractures were found by CT scans and additional views, according to Dr. Linda Seaman. Three were occult fractures, she said.
Dr. Matt Seaman ultimately agreed to a Stipulation of Informal Disposition, which would make the allegations public and mean the voluntary surrender of his license. If he agreed, the commission would forgo further disciplinary proceedings, according to commission records.*
Although reluctant, Dr. Seaman signed the stipulation after learning it could cost $50,000 out-of-pocket to defend an ongoing medical commission case.
“He was getting more depressed by the insults and assaults on his integrity and professionalism, and his expertise as a board-certified emergency medicine physician since 1988,” Dr. Linda Seaman said. “It appeared rational to Matt to just ‘make this investigation go away.’ Matt wanted to move on, relieve himself of the stress and relentless burden of demands and dialogue between him, his defense attorney, the insurance company, and the [commission] investigation team. His defense attorney agreed.”
Stephanie McManus, a spokeswoman for the commission, said the commission’s job is to protect the public and the profession of medicine through equitable treatment of all parties involved in the complaint process, including practitioners.
“The WMC is bound by laws and administrative rules for how complaints are processed and investigated,” Ms. McManus said in an interview when asked specifically about the Seamans’ allegations that the expert was biased. “There is an even larger body of laws and rules governing the WMC actions when it comes to the formal and informal discipline process. To that end, we use outside experts when the findings are challenged to ensure that the results are impartial. There is an expansive set of due process rights afforded to all practitioners and our burden of proof is the second highest possible per Washington case law. Dr. Seaman was represented by legal counsel throughout this process and had the ability to make use of the entirety of the court system to find relief.”
Following the stipulation, Dr. Seaman watched as a career’s worth of accolades and awards were replaced with warning letters and embarrassing alerts. The complaint was reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank and the Federation of State Medical Boards. The stipulation he signed was placed on the health department’s website and disseminated via the commission’s electronic mailing list. Just months before, Dr. Matt Seaman had received a 30-year pin from the American Board of Emergency Medicine for his “dedication to the specialty,” and now, there was a letter warning he was no longer certified and that he was ineligible to practice in Washington state.
Before Dr. Matt Seaman could put the complaint behind him, he encountered another challenge: a lawsuit.
A lingering case
After a long, demanding career, Dr. Matt Seaman had little energy left to fight an arduous legal battle in retirement. He knew that demanding hours, hearings, and questioning were ahead – and he wanted none of it.
The lawsuit, filed by the same patient who filed the commission complaint, alleged that Dr. Matt Seaman’s efforts fell below the standard of care when evaluating the patient’s injuries. As a result, the patient’s fractures went undiagnosed until 2 days later, causing the patient "to suffer permanent physical ... damage," the suit alleged. Dr. Matt Seaman's legal team denied the allegations and countered that the plaintiff's claim was invalid, according to court records. The claim did not meet the threshold for a malpractice claim because there was essentially "no permanent damage" caused by the missed fractures, according to Dr. Linda Seaman and journal entries by Dr. Matt Seaman. To be considered medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that an injury was caused by negligence and that the injury resulted in significant harm. The treatment for the missed fractures was conservative care, including bed rest, ice, and elevation, and ultimately, some physical therapy, Dr. Linda Seaman said.
Dr. Matt Seaman's assigned defense attorney, Peter Ritchie, contended that the plaintiff's injuries, if any, were caused by other parties associated with the patient's medical care. In court documents, Mr. Ritchie named several other health professionals and entities as being potentially responsible for the patient's alleged injuries.
It is unclear whether TeamHealth or Dr. Matt Seaman's insurer hired Mr. Ritchie as his defense attorney. Neither TeamHealth nor ProAssurance, Dr. Matt Seaman’s medical liability insurer, responded to inquiries about their roles in the case.
Dr. Linda Seaman said her husband was not negligent, but he wanted the case to end. In a journal entry dated Dec. 22, 2018, Dr. Seaman wrote that he could not mentally endure a trial.
“From the perspective of stress and depression, we must settle soon,” Dr. Seaman wrote in an entry provided to MDedge News. “For me, the stress is overwhelming.”
He repeatedly pleaded with Mr. Ritchie to settle, but his defense team rejected his requests, his wife said. A physician’s medical liability insurance contract generally dictates whether the insurer can opt to settle or pursue a trial without a physician’s approval. The specifics of Dr. Matt Seaman’s contract are unclear.
To his dismay, he learned that the stipulation he had signed with the commission would be allowed during the deposition, although his defense attorney initially had assured the opposite, she said.
“Matt was informed that the stipulation would most likely be read line by line as a component of the discovery process,” Dr. Linda Seaman said. “Matt felt betrayed.”
Mr. Ritchie, a defense attorney based in Yakima, Wash., did not return messages seeking comment. TeamHealth, Dr. Seaman’s employer, which helped manage the claim, declined to comment about the specifics of Dr. Seaman’s case.
“As a general policy we cannot comment on litigation, but the health and well-being of our doctors and health care providers is always a critical priority,” the company said in a statement. “The entire TeamHealth family is deeply saddened by the loss of Dr. Seaman and expresses our heartfelt condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues.”
By mid-March 2019, Dr. Seaman’s case had more than 100 court entries, including motions, countermotions, and disputes regarding admissible evidence. The couple was informed that the plaintiff was requesting to view Dr. Seaman’s mental health records. On March 8, 2019, Mr. Ritchie sought a protective order against disclosure of Dr. Seaman’s mental health history, arguing that the information was irrelevant and a violation of Dr. Seaman’s privacy, according to court documents. A judge denied the protective order.
Against the Seamans’ protest, the plaintiff added Dr. Linda Seaman and “the marital community” as defendants. In general, a spouse may be added to a civil suit to preserve the plaintiff’s ability to collect on any assets transferred from the defendant to the spouse, according to two medical liability defense attorneys unrelated to the case.*
The Seamans feared that the plaintiff intended to go after their personal assests after exceeding the policy limit.
“Everything we’d saved our whole lives was at stake,” Dr. Linda Seaman said.