FILED

18 JUN 04 PM 3:48

l
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLER
2 E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 1~2-14146-0 SEA
3

7
IN THE SUPERIORCOURTOFTHE STATE OF WASHINGTON
B IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

9 TIEN IBACH, M.D. NO.

10 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT

11 \I.

12 MATRIX ANESTHESIA, P.S., a

Washington corporation; SEAN KINCAID,
13 M.D., an individual person; JOHN
COS1ELW, ~·tD., an individual person;
14 JOHN DOES I-XX, individual persons,

15 Defendants.

16 Tien Thach, M.D., by and through her attorneys, FREY BUCK, P.S., alleges the follclwing

l7 facts and causes of action against the above-named defendants a.'j, follows:
18
I. PARTIES
19
LI Plaintiff Tien Thach, J:.~1.D. ('Thach") is a resident of Bellevue. King County,
20
Wa...hington.
21 Defendant Matrix Anesthesia, P.S. ('Matrix") is, on mfonnation and belief, a
1.2
22 Washington Corporation doing business in King County, Washington.

23
L3 Defendant Sean Kincaid, M.D. ("Kincaid") is, on information and belief, aresident

C0~·1PLAINT. l FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 nrTH AVENUE, SUIT£ 1500
SEATTLE, WA 98101
P. (206)486·8000 r (206) 902~966-o
 1 of Snohomish County, Washington. Dr. Kincaid is a shareholder and the Chief Executive Officer

2 of Matrix. Dr. Kincaid is abw a member-al-large of Matrix Anesthesia Evergreen, a division of

3 Matrix.

4 l.4 Defendant John Costello,l:.!.D. ("Costello") is. on information and belief, a resident

5 of King County, Washington. Dr. CosteUo is a member of Matrix Anesthesia Corpomtion and

6 acts as it-; Chief Financial Officer. Dr. Costello is also the President of Matrix Anesthesia

7 Overtake,

8 L5 John Does I-XX are currently unknown corpornte leaders of Matrix who were

9 involved in and/or approved. the wrongful C<>rpurate actions described herein.

JO IL JURISDICTION Ai'lD VENUE

11 2.1 This court has jurisdiction over thi~ matter because Matrix Anesthesia, P,S. is a

12 closely held corpor&tion headquartered and tmnsacting busines..~ in King County, Washington.

l3 Upon infonnalion and belief Matrix, Costello, Does and Dr. Thach all reside, work, and may be

14 found in King County, Washington; defendant Kincaid works in King County.

)5 2.2 Venue in the, Superior Court of King Cuun ty, Washington is proper because all acts

16 and omiss1ons giving rise to plaintiffs claims occurred in King County, "washington.

17 Ill. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18 3.1 Plaintiff Tien Thach, M.D., was originally employed by Matrix on October 3, 2010.

19 hfatrix has two divisions: Matrix Anesthesia Overlake ('MAO"), serving O,rerlake Hospital and

20 Medical Center in Bellevue, Wa.i;hington and Matrix Anesthesia Evergreen ('MAE") serving

21 Evergreen Hospital in Kirkland, Washington. Dt. Thach worked in the MAO division, originally

22 as an employee and later as a shareholder of Matrix.

23 3.2 In August of 2013, the MAO divisional board asked Dr. Thach to accept the role of

COMPLI\INT - 2 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE lSOO
SEA trLE, WA 98101
P. (206} 486-8000 r (200) 902-9000
 1 lv!A0' s Divisional Compliance Officer. Dr. Thach accepted the role. She was eletled lo lhe

2 position of MAO Board Tre.aimrerc>n August 25, 2016 for a rwo-yeartenn fr<>m 2017 to 2019.

3 3.3 Dr. Thach's responsibilities as the divisional compliance officer included

4 addressing potential legal and practice-related compliance issues. Despite these responsibilities,

5 the Matrix board infonned Dr. Thach that she was not permitted lo contact corporate legal counsel

6 with questions or concerns.. C(lntacl with Matrix ,-ounsel was expressly limited to che CEO and

7 CFO. Dr. Thach was informed that chis rule was enacted by Defendant Kincaid as. president of

8 Matrix.

9 3.4 On October 18, 2016, a MAO divi.-.ional meeting included a presenlalion by

10 Defendant John Costello, M.D. and Dr. Dave Knoepfler, then the Chief Medical Officer of

J1 Overtake Hospital. Defendant Costello and Dr. Knoepfler announced that a new administrative

12 position, .MedicaJ Direct<'lr of Surgical Service.s, had been created at Overlake, and moreover, thac

13 Overlake hoped Defendant Costello would accept the position.

14 3.5 The Medical Director of Surgical Services. salary structure described by Defendant

15 Costello concerned Dr. Thach in her role as compliance officer. Defendant proposed splitting his

16 time between ihe two positions; halftime a,..., an MAO anesthesiologist, and the other half in the

17 administrative role. However, Defendant sought to retain his full-time anesthesiologist salary of

J8 appmximarely $500,000. Because the new position included a S 150,000 stipend, and half-time

19 anesthesiology work would net approximately $250,000, Dr. Knoepfler suggested Matrix should

20 support Costello in the new po.... ition; Costello subsequently specifically indicated that to support

21 him in the new position MAO would have to make up the difference of approximately $100,000

22 in his prospective lost wages annually. Plaintiff was concerned that lhis financial arr.:1ngement

23 risked running afoul of anti-kickback statutes.

COMPLAINT-3 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 Fll'TH AVEN'U£, SUITE 1£.00
SEA TILE, WA 98101
P • (206) 486~8000 F: (206} 902-9660
 3.6 On October 25, 2016, Dr. Thach brought her Ct)ncetns related to lhe new medical

2 director position salary structure to Matrix Corporate C(,mpl iance Officer Raphael N. Rodriguez,

3 M.D,, in accord with proper procedure .md to assure IJansparency. Dr. Rodriguez confrnned that

4 defendant Costello wa-. asking Matrix to contribute approximately $100,000 to allow him to take

5 the new position without suffering a decrease in his usual earnings. Dr. Rodriguez reported that

6 .Matrix Counsel lee Th{)rson previously approved a similar amtngement for two MAE

7 anesthesiologists, and that :Mr. Thorson's blessing would be sought for the Costello arrangement.

8 Satisfied with Dr. Rodriguez's response, Dr. Thach did not pursue the matter further.

9 3.7 One of the two MAE anesthesiologists receiving a similar financial contribution to

10 the one proposed by Defendant Costell(l is, on information and belief, Defendant Sean Kincaid,

l1 M.D., who serves as Medical Staff Vice President al Evergreen Hospital.

l2 3.8 ln January 2017 Dr. Thach attended lhe American Society of AnesthesiologisL-.

13 PrJ.ctice Management conference in Dallas, Tex.as in her role as divisional compliance officer. On

14 the last day of the conference, she attended a sess10n entitled "Anti-Kickback Statutes/Stark Law

15 Lecture" presented by Marc Vezina, Esq. The presentation provided detailed information on anti-

16 kickback rules and appeared to al least potentially impact the proposed rc1edical director position

17 that Dr. Thach had earlier discussed with Dr. Rodriquez. The presentation rekindled Plaintiffs

18 concerns that the arrangement could expose the group to legal liability given the proposed salary

19 "contributions" required to make up Defendant Costello's lessened earnings in the new position.

20 Dr. Thach, seeking t<., maintain confidentiality and to protect the group, anonymously approached

21 the presenting attorney at lecture's end to generally describe her concerns. She provided no

22 identifying information regarding the group.

23 3.9 The presenting attorney informed Dr. Thach that she had good rea.wn lo be

COlvlPL,JNT. 4 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 FlFT".r-1 A VENUE, SUITE: 1SOO
SEA TTL!!:, WA 981()1
P: (206) 486-8000 F. (206} 902,9660
 l concemed over the arrangement, and suggested that she have the group re-evalua(e the

2 arrangement to a~sure it wa,:; not exposing i t,;;elf U> potential sanction.

3 3.10 On January 30, 2017, pursuant to her fiduciary duties as compliance officer and as

4 a shareholder of Matrix, Plaintiff contacted Dr. Rodriguez to ag-,1in express her concem over the

5 legality/propriety of the medical director ammgement given the information she had gle-aned at the

6 conference. Dr. Rodriguez expressed concem, assumed reliponsibility for all further investigation

7 and foJlow-up, and accepted Dr. Thach's offer to provide the presenting attorney's contact

8 information. Dr. Thach took no further action believing Dr. Rodriguez had the authority to

9 properly investigate and cure any potential impropriety.

10 3.l l On March 28, 2017, v.'ithout warning and prompted by her report to Dr. Rodrigue'z,

11 Dr. Thach was publicly anacked at a Matrix Corporate Board meeting, Defendants Kincaid and

12 Costello displayed a Po\verPoint presentation through whic.h they accused plaintiff of a broad

l3 range of "wrongdoing." Significantly, both defendants were personally involved in salary

14 supplement arrangements with Matrix that were the cause of Dr Thach's anti-kick-b::ickconcems,

15 m; properly presented to Dr. Rodri.1:,'Uez. Each defendant realized personal gain from the

16 arrangements. The defendants' presentation was factually imt.ccur.ite and knowingly false. lt

17 directly impacted Plaintiff in her prnfes..<.ion. Defendants accused Dr. Thach of several alleged

18 misdeeds:

19 • Bypassing the board and circumventing normal issue-escalation procedure;

20 • Acting on a "personal agenda";

21 • Failure to fulfill fiduciary duties to serve in the corporation's best interest; and,

22 • Impennissibly seeking outside legal counsel and ignoring the advice of "trusted

23 legal counsel."

COMPL..\JNT- 5 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 FlFTH AVENUE, SUITE: 1500
SEA Ttt.£, WA 981.01
P. (206) 486·8000 F (206) 902,966D
 1 3.J 2 Defendants' assault on Dr. Tha:ch's character failed to address the trnth of her

2 actions - that she had expressed legitimate concerns through the appropriate corpor.:lle structure

3 that the group's agreements ""With 01rerlake and Evergreen Hospitals may be in violation of anti-

4 kickback laws. Defendants further failed to express orin anyway recognize that it was Dr. Thach' s

5 fiduciary duty to address such potential problems in her role a-. divisional compliance officer and

6 that it was in her inlerest as a shareholder of the corporntion to bring to light and avoid potential

7 COfJX)rate improprieties.

8 3.13 Plaintiff had received no warmng thal such attack was coming; defendants

9 preltented her with no opportunity to fairly refute the false accusations.

10 3.14 On April 3, 2017, Corpcmile Compliance Chairman Rodriguez told Dr. Thach she

11 had indeed foll owed proper protocols by escalating the matter to him, and that he "got in trouble"

12 with Defendant Kincaid for inve.stigating the matter. Dr. Rodriguez i.ndicated that he would soon

l3 step down from the corporation's compliance office.

14 3J5 On April 5,2017, the final board meeting minutes were published, but in deviation

15 from standard prnctice, were made available to MAO members only by written request, and then

16 only via hrurl copy. Dr. Thach had previously provided a detailed written response to the

17 inaccumte minute.s and the unfounded attack by defendants~ lhe approved minutes pmvided no

18 reference to her facts and corrections, Instead, the minutes simply reported that Plaintiff

19 "disagreed" that her efforts were inconsistent with her duties, and that she had presented "reasons"

20 for her disagreement The minutes did not provide the shareholders with notiL'e of the potential

21 pmblem presented by the salary enhancement arran~ment.

22 3.16 Shocked at the attack by the defendanL"> a~ corporate leaders and their manipulation

23 of the corporale :structure to intimidate and oppress her in her role as divisional compliance officer

COMPLA.INT • 6 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 FU'!H AV£NOE, SUIT£ 1roo
~t!Ll!:, WA 98101
P. (206)486·8000 F (206} 902-9660
 l and a shareholder of the corporation, Dr. Thach believed she had no alternative but to proffer a

2 le uer of res.i,gnation from her positions as MAO Treasurer, Matrix Corporate Board Member, and

3 MAO Division C(}mpliance Officer. Dr. Thach subsequently turned her focus lo the care of her

4 patients.

5 3. J7 Dr. Thach remained an active and engaged shareholder,, exercising her shareholder

6 right.~ and re~1,pcmsibilities, she c(;ntinued to voice her opinions about issues sunounding the proper

7 governance of the group. Her statemenL" as a shareholder of the organization ,vere frequently

8 contrary to the defendants' positions on various issues but unifonnly presented in a respectful and

9 apprl)priate manner.

10 3.18 Among the issues facing the corporation wa~ a po!ential sale of the corporation to

11 an outside organization. Corporate leadership, including Cost.ello and Kincaid, strongly supported

12 the sale. Dr. Thach expressed her opinion to other shareholders that the terms of the sale would

13 not benefit the group in the long term. On information and belief, Matrix corporate officers

14 working to secure approval of the sale of the group to the outside company were to receive

15 s.ignificant personal bemuse~ from Lhe purchasing company, in addition t(> their share value. On

16 information and belief, Defondants C.Ostello and Kincaid were working to achieve the sale and

17 stood to benefit from it beyond their individual share values.

18 3.19 In addition, on infonnation and belief the payout to individual shareholders in the

19 event of a sale to the ouL~ide company would increase if the total number of shareholders were

20 reduced. Accordingly, defendants would individually benefit by reducing the number of

21 ,,;harehoWers.

22 3.20 In January '.::O 18, according to the group's tradition, Dr. Thach began lo phm a

23 retirement party for a teUow shareholder. Defendant Costello responded to her communications

COMPLAINT· 7 FREY BUCK, P.S"

1200 nrnt A VENUE, SUITE 19}0
SEA 'ITJ..E, WA 9$101.
P. (206) 486-8000 F: (206) 902·9660
 l with factual inaccuracies and inconsistent instructions in an auempt to disS<uade her effort!i<. Other

2 shareholders subsequently noted the propriety of Dr. Thach' s approach and its consistency with

3 prior group practice. Defendant Costeilo nevertheless steadfastly hewed to his inaccurate position

4 and directed the issue away from the board's consideration. Defendant Costello's resistance took

5 the character of retaliatory, personal attack bereft of factual support - much like the earlier

6 PowerPoint defamation.

7 3.21 On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff was told by lv!AO's scheduler that the ~4AO Board

8 intended to call her out of sef\l'ice for an impromptu "meeting." The warning stated that Plaintiff

9 wmild be pulled from the operating rt)om in the middle of the morning on January 26 to attend a

10 meeting with Dr. Dorothy Ling and Dr. Guy Kuo, rnlher than at an official board meeting. Dr.

11 Thach .located Dr. Ling on January 26 and inqmred after the meeting's purpose: Ling responded

J2 that it was a "fnendly meeting for advice."

J3 3.22 Dr. Thach was concerned about the aberrant meeting demand given her pa.-.t

14 treatment by the defendants and the Matrix boa.rd. To help avoid any new surprise alt.acb and to

15 support fairness and tnmsparency, on January 26, 2018 Dr. Thach delivered a i.vriuen message to

16 Defendant Costello stating that she was concemed about attending impromptu meetings and would

i7 not subject herself 10 another unprovoked surprise attack. Instead, she reque..-;ted written

18 notification of any planned meetings, including an agenda or at least some indkation of the topic

l9 and the names of those expected to attend. Plaintiff alw requested advance notice so that she could

20 invite counsel to attend if po$.<iible and stated that she wished "to fully cooperate .. and attend any

21 public (>f private meetings"

3.23 On March 13, :018, the Matrix board responded by terminating Dr. Thach's

23 employment, effective immediately, The Board subsequently sent a message to all shareholders

COMPLAINT·· 8 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 nrm AVENUE, SUITE 19:10
SEATTLE, WA 98101.
P. (20e) 486-8000 f (200} 902-%60
 l openly suggesting her termination wa.._ the result of clinical failures or activities contrary to the

2 interest.._ of lhe corporalion. On information and belief, the mes.,:;age was written by and/or

3 approved by Defendants Costello, Kincaid and/or Does. The statement was utterly and knowingly

4 false.

5 3.24 On information and belief, Defendants subsequently started rumors that Plaintiff" s

6 termination was due to a "drug problem", that it was premised upon an alleged threat made by

7 Plaintiff's long-ti.me compamon, and that the companion had attempted to "hack" the group's

8 common posting ,vall. AH of these allegations are wholly unfounded.

9 3.25 Matrix AnesLhe.-..ia, P.S. and the Matrix board are respt)nsible for violations of

10 ·washington law related to corporate governance, fiduciary obligations, and minority liliareholder

11 rightli. Defendants' actions also constitute the tort of Outrage and have defamed Dr. Thach in her

12 professional endeavors.

13 3.26 On March 13. ::wrn, Dr. Thach received an anonymous letter from "The Matrix

14 Board" infonning her that her shareholder rights had been tennimued. In terminating Dr. Thach' s

15 shareholder rights, defendants Matrix, Kincaid, Costello and Does I-XX violated the corporation's

16 bylaws. The termination was. beyond the authority of the board and unauthorized under the bylaws.

17

18 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

VIOLI\TION OF CORPORATE BYLA \\rs
19
4.1 Dr. Thach, as a shareholder of the corporJ.tion, was entitled to the right'> and
20
privileges of a shareholder as. described in the corporate bylaws.
21
4.2 Defendants orchestrated the deprivation of Dr. Thach's rights under the bylaws by
22
depriving her of her shareholder status in violation of the corporation's bylaws.
23
4.3 The wrongful deprivation of Dr. Thach 's shareholder status has caused and will
CO!vIPL.\INT. 9 FREY BUCK, P.S.
1200 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE EOO
SEATTLE, WA 98101
P. (20e)486-8000 F (206) 902-966-0
 J continue to cause her injury.

2 v. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF

FIDUCIARY DUTY, DUTY OF GOOD FAITH
3 At'lD FAIR. DEALING

4 5.1 Defendants Kincaid, Costello and Does as coqx)rate officers had a fiduciary duty

5 to the corporntion and its shareholders and a duty of g<Xxi faith and fair dealin~ Matrix had a duty

6 lo treat minority shareholder Thach reasonably and fairly and acted solely through its corp<>r,lle

7 governance structure overseen by defendant.~ Kincaid, Costello and Does.

8 5.2 Defendants violated these duties by ignoring legilimale shareholder concerns,

9 intimidating shareholders, violating shareholder protections ensconcedin the corporation's bylaws

10 and stifling intra-sharehnlder communication. Defendants further violated their duties by

11 retaliating against plaintiff for her effort to bring: potentially significant legal issues lo I.he

12 corporation for investigation and evaluation.

13 5.3 Defendants acted oppres!".ively and in bad faith through pervasive intimidating and

14 retaliatory attacks upon Dr, Thach ent>ineered to protect their own interests over lhose of lhe

15 corporation and in subversion of Dr. Thach' s shareholder interests.

16 5.4 On information and belief, defendant-. Kincaid, Costello and Does also acted for

17 the benefit of their personal interests over those of Dr. Thach in further violation of their fiduciary

J8 duty.

]9 5.5 Defendant Matrix also had a duty to treat minority shareholders fairly and not

20 interfere with shareholders' rights and benefits as owners of the company unreasonably.

21 Defendant Matrix violated those duties.

22 5,6 As a resuh of the violations of these duties, Dr. Thach has and continlles to be

23 injured.

COl\•1PLAINT ~ IO FREY BUCK, P.S,

1200 nrrn AVENU£, SUIT£ HOO
SEA rn.t, WA 98101
P. (206) 486-00JO F (206) 902·9660
 VI. TIHRD CAUSE OF ACTIOS:
MINORITY SHAREHOLDER OPPRESSIOS

6.1 The pattem of intimidation and reraJiation by Defendants CosteHo, Kincaid, Does
3
and Matrix againl-it Dr. Thach while she served the MAO boa.rd a.,;; its trea,;;urer and compliance
4
c,)ffic;~r and as$ board member of the Matrix board was burdensome, harsh and wrongful. This
5
conduct continued well after Dr. Thach' s resignation from the board and impacted her rights as a
6
shareholder. Defendant,,.· improper oppression eventually led to the usurpation of Dr. Thach's
7
shareholder status and the unfounded deprivation of her righL,;.; and benefits a.<; a shareholder.
8
Defendants' acts were not for the benefit of the corporJ.tion, but rather were for the benefit of
9
individual C(>rporn.te officers al the expense of a minority shareholder and in retalialion for Dr.
10
Thach's exercise of her rights and responsibilities as a shareholder.
1t
6.2 Defendants' efforts to diminish Dr. Thach and her diligent investigation of potential
12
anti-kickback statute violations by both Defendanls are incontrovertible evidence of a lack of
J3
probity and fair dealing in the affain; of Matrix Anesthesia, to the prejudice of irs members.
14
6.3 Defendants' ambush of Dr. Thach in front of her peen on the Matrix board and
15
defamatory slatements regarding her actions violated standard..., of fair dealing and fair play on
16
which every shareholder is entitled to rely.
17
6.4 Defendants' conduct meets or exceeds the standards of minority shaTeholder
18
oppression in Washington State.
19
6.5 As a result of the defendants' oppressive and wrongful conduct, Dr. Thach has and
20
continues to be injured.
21
VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: WHISTLEBW\VER.
22
7, I Defendants' conduct as described in (his complaint constituted retaliation for Dr.
23
Thach's effort to evaluate and investigate potential corporate misfeasance.
CO.MPLAINT ~ 11 FREY BUCK, P.S.
1200 FIFTH AVENUE, SUIT£ EOG
SEATTU:, WA 98101
P, (206} 486~6000 F: (206) 902·9660
 1 7.2 Dr. Thach's efforts were driven by her duty to the corporation as divisional

2 C(>mpliance officer and as a shareholder of the corpomtion.

3 7.3 Defendants' actions are in violation of legal protections afforded whistleblowers.

4 7.4 Defendants' wrongful actions have caused and continue to cause injury to Dr_

5 Thach.

6 VHI. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: OUTRAGE

7 8.1 Defendants deprived Dr. Thach of her shareholder status as a result of her efforts

8 lo prnlect Matrix and il'i shareholders from potential legal exposure under anti-kickback slatutes

9 and for voicing her opinions and opposition to defendants' corporate leadership. Defendants'

JO behavior was: extreme and outrageous, in violation of fiduciary responsibilities and utterly

1J intolerable in a civil society.

8.2 Defendants intentionall)1 or recklessly inflicted emotional distress on Dr. Thach by

13 subjecting: her, onarm(>Unced and tvithout warning, to a direc(, humiliating, ontounded and personal

14 attack in front of the Matrix board in retaliation for her act of exercising her responsibilily as a

15 divisional compliance officer and shareholder to as.sure that the corporntion was not operaling in

16 conlrdvention of the law.

17 8.3 Defendants intentionally or reddes... ly inflicted emotional distress on Dr. Thach

18 through relentless intimidation and character assassination even aft.er they oonstructivel)'' removed

19 her from her elected positions of trust as the MAO treasurer and a member of the Matrix lx>ard.

20 8.4 Defendants intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress on Dr. Thach by

21 retaliating against her for pointing out potential legal incongruities in the corporation's business

22 a.ffairs, voicing her opinion contr.try to corpornle leadership and, on information and belief, in their

23 effort to personally gain through the direction of corporate affairs at the expense of Dr. Thach.

COMPLAINT~ J 2 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 FIFTH A Vi.NU£, SUrtE 1500
5£ATTLE, WA 98101
P. (20o) 486,,8000 F: (206) 902'-9660
 1 8.5 Defendants' behavior is reprehensible and goes beyond all pos:.ible bounds of

2 decency. It is atrocious and uucrly intolernble in a society where laws and regulations exist lo

3 specifically protect the public from corporate malfeasance and deception.

4 8.6 Dr. Thach ha.-. i;uffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress caused by

5 defendants' extreme and <IDtrngeous a els and behavior.

6 IX. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DEFAMATION/FALCiiE LIGHT

7 9.l Defendants exposed Plaintiff Tien Thach, M.D., to ridicule and injury to her

8 replltation by publicly and improperly castigating Dr. Thach in fronl uf all MAO shareholders,

9 surgical colleagues, nursing co-workers, and staff al Overtake Hospital 1fodkal Cenler, lhe Retinal

JO Surgery Center, and Proliance Highlands Surgical C.enter, v.,ithout factual basis and knmving thal

JJ the charges and allegations were false.

.,
12 9.~ Defendants further exposed Plaintiff to ridicule and injury to her reputation by

13 immediately terminating her employment and publicly informing others that the termination wa.~

M neces.-.ary due to either a Clinical issue or behavior that was contr.rry to the corporntion' s interests,

15 bases lhaL lhe defendants knew to be false.

16 9.3 These act~ constirnte defamation per se as they have impacted Dr. Thach in her

l7 professional capacity.

18 X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19 Plaintiff Tien Thach, M.D., prays for the fnlimving relief:

20 1 Di.~'>Olution of lhe corporation pursuant to RCW 23B.14.300~

21 2. Special and general damages in an amount t() be proven al trial;

22 3. Cosl-:. and fees; and

23 4. All other relief a.'i lhe Court deems just and equitable.

COMPL.\INT - 13 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 FtrlH A VENUE, SUITil: 19JO
SEA TILE, WA 98101
P: (206) 486~8000 F: (206) 902,9660
 l

2 DATED thi.s l llh day of April, 2018.

3
FREY BUCK~ P.S.
4

6
By: -r~
Ted Buck, WSBA #22029
Attome.vfor Plaintiff
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

COMP LA INT~ l4 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 F!FrH AVENUE, surrt 19:10
SEA TTU::, WA 98101
P: (206) 486..SOOO r (206) 902-%00