The county provides occupational and physical therapy, among other things, to children with a variety of medical conditions. The therapy is subject to many regulations, including the need for therapists to provide periodic medical evaluations, and prepare detailed reports to support billings.
In June 2020, the therapist received a “Meets Expected Standards” overall rating on her performance evaluation, but the evaluation noted that the therapist: was below average in the number of treatments per week; and was behind in completing client re-evaluations.
In July 2021, the therapist again received an overall “meets expected standards”, but received “improvement needed” in several categories, including the same problems noted in the 2020 evaluation as well as filing inaccurate evaluations and reports. The county issued the therapist a performance improvement plan (PIP). The therapist complained that the PIP was retaliation for her request for accommodation and concerns about the county’s COVID protocols.
The therapist then filed a complaint, claiming she was not accommodated and she was discriminated against for seeking to work remotely. The county’s investigation found that no discrimination had occurred. The investigation showed that the county had eight interactive process meetings with the therapist and provided several accommodations.
The county’s review of billing records indicated the therapist had billed a high amount to Medi-Cal, without preparing supporting reports. The county investigated and found that the therapist had: billed for work 11 times without documentation; and her untimely evaluations endangered her patients’ health. The county noticed the therapist for demotion so that she could have more training and supervision.
The therapist responded to the notice of charges that: she had an excellent record; it was difficult to access all the files she needed to do her work; and the lack of client evaluations was likely due to patients missing appointments. The county issued a final notice to demote the therapist because she should have been aware of billing requirements and she had endangered patients.
The therapist appealed. She claimed: she did not have sufficient notice of performance failures; her demotion was retaliation for her complaints and requests for accommodation; and that she was “coachable” and recognized her need to improve.
The hearing officer upheld all charges and the penalty of demotion. The hearing officer noted that: the county had proved the charges; the therapist had notice of her performance failures; there was no causal connection between the disciplinary action and the therapist’s requests for accommodation and complaints; and that the therapist did not present a sincere or credible demeanor at the hearing.
The hearing officer’s decision became final after the therapist withdrew her appeal to the Employee Appeals Board.