What is the 'judicial truth' of the head of the Pediatric ICU of La Paz?

Francisco Goiri Madrid

Madrid

Updated Wednesday, January 24, 2024-00:07

What is hidden behind the successive dismissals and reinstatements of your boss, Pedro de la Oliva?

Accusations of "workplace harassment";

voluntary resignations and cascading medical leaves from the team, until losing weight - and making the de facto disappearance - of a service that was a reference throughout Spain;

an internal investigation protocol with more than 4,900 pages and almost thirty testimonies from doctors throughout the hospital, the forced transfer of De la Oliva to another position, the opening of a disciplinary procedure by the Ministry of Health... They are part of the milestones of a case that dates back to 2020, and that has many more shadows than lights.

De la Oliva is in his office in La Paz.

He is Head of Service in a service that, now, for the moment, no longer exists.

He is hand over hand and, when the phone rings, he picks it up and, with exquisite kindness, he tells us that he can't talk.

He knows everyone is talking about him, but he can't talk about himself.

His lawyers have advised him not to do so, and he refers us to them.

It is the legal team of the best-known head of the Service in Spain in recent days that details his judicial journey.

"Not what the complainants, the Administration or us say (the lawyers point out), but the conclusions that the judges have reached in view of what was stated by the parties and the evidence presented."

Judicial truth, if such a thing exists.

That truth, written black on white in successive orders and sentences, is substantiated in several very strong statements, and not precisely against the aforementioned head of Service.

There are rulings that do not see "any workplace harassment", another that speaks of "clear non-compliance with orders from a superior" or that detects a "joint action against the first [De la Oliva] in order to have him separated from the leadership and , if possible, of the service itself".

Among other niceties, a latest ruling accuses the Ministry of Health (ultimately responsible for the internal organization of the public hospital) of "fraud of law", of abandoning its functions, of acting "with a misuse of power" and, even, of "continuing to tolerate (if not protecting) methods of collective pressure."

The curtain officially rises in the second half of 2020. What was going on behind the scenes in the prestigious (in terms of care, at least) Pediatric ICU of La Paz led to an internal conflict protocol that the Hospital Management opened against De la Oliva for complaints of "workplace harassment" and "abuse of power", filed by six doctors of the service.

The hospital dismissed him for the first time.

It was March 31, 2021. Without hesitation, the accused appealed that dismissal in two ways (ordinary and protection of fundamental rights), and here comes the first complaint from his defense: the head of service - his lawyers - did not have access to the contents of the file opened by the hospital until the trial began.

According to them, he did not know what he was accused of nor was he able to make allegations before the La Paz Management made his dismissal effective.

De la Oliva's appeal for protection of fundamental rights was dismissed.

There was no sanction against him nor was his position untouchable, because the head of the Service is a freely appointed position, the courts said.

The other appeal, the ordinary one, was admitted for processing and the ruling was issued on February 6, 2023. After examining the written claim, analyzing the almost 5,000 pages of the file opened by the La Paz Management and listening to the testimonies of the plaintiffs, the judge concluded, among other things, that "we are not faced with any workplace harassment by a head of service in front of his subordinate doctors, but rather with clear non-compliance with orders given by a hierarchical superior, with the specialization and experience that "It is proven in your service record."

Result:

the judge ordered that De la Oliva be restored to his position.

This is, precisely, the ruling that the Community of Madrid has appealed to the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Madrid, and whose ruling will be heard on January 31.

By the way: the complaining doctors, his subordinates, who refused to appear at the hearing, were summoned to the trial that restored De la Oliva as head of the Service.

THE "UNUSUAL" MADRID ARGUMENT

The Administration tried, however, to ensure that the sentence was not carried out;

that is, that De la Olvia did not return to his office.

He alleged that, if he became boss again, his subordinates would resign in a cascade (because they had already announced that they would resign or take sick leave) and that, therefore, the future of the UCI was in danger.

The judge responded to the Community of Madrid in a new order, on September 14, 2023, and told him that his argument seemed "unusual."

Literally.

"The announcement (not to use other terms) of the en bloc abandonment of a very important public healthcare service such as the Pediatric ICU of a hospital," the new order literally says, is no argument for failing to comply with the execution of a sentence.

The magistrate says more, in case the Community had any doubts about the "unusual" nature of their request.

It says that compliance with a sentence "cannot be left to the will of a concerted group of people. And the extreme importance and sensitivity of the function that such people perform should not be used as an instrument of pressure to prevent compliance with a decision." "Judicial. Even less should the Administration grant this a charter."

In short, De la Oliva returns to his position on September 25, 2023 (first restitution forced by justice) and the Community's prediction is fulfilled point by point, as if he had a crystal ball: between the 21st and the 28th of that month (even before their return), the 6 complaining doctors and another colleague take medical leave (of which only two are covered), and two months later, on November 30, 4 more sick leave occur and 5 resignations.

Ergo, the prestigious Pediatric ICU of La Paz is in great danger, as the Community of Madrid had also predicted.

What does the Madrid Health Administration do then?

Well, De la Oliva is once again dismissed, and he does so due to his "inability to manage care and organization" of the service.

What is the Community of Madrid based on to make that argument?

In that - in full harmony with his correct predictions - on December 18, 2023 "we only have two doctors at 100% of their activity, one at 50% and the head of service himself, who does not keep guards."

The crystal ball has indeed worked like a charm.

A DEMOLITING CAR

Once he is officially informed of his new dismissal, De la Oliva gets up from his office, goes to the court with his lawyers and they present a new brief.

The defense of the head of the Service argues that the Community of Madrid is trying to evade compliance with the sentence, and the judge (magistrate, in this case) tells them that yes, they are right, and argues it in an order, issued on last January 11, which is absolutely devastating for the Madrid Administration.

The judge recalls that up to 3 judicial resolutions have been issued in which it is established that De la Oliva must be restored to the position from which he was dismissed.

When his dismissal is ordered again, just 3 months after the last ruling, "it can be seen that such an act has been adopted in fraud of law, with the purpose of not complying with a judicial decision."

What's more, the judge continues in her brief, the Administration's argument to justify the second dismissal of De la Oliva [the en bloc abandonment of the ICU doctors] "is a situation that was announced in previous writings, and that has been allegedly provoked by some and consented to by others, to ensure, ultimately, that judicial resolutions are not complied with."

QUITMENT OF FUNCTIONS

And the announced dismantling of the UCI is not the responsibility of De la Oliva, adds the last and devastating order, but "of those who had to replace the absent doctors and have not done so."

For the judge, the subject of this abandonment of duties has a first and last name: "The Health Administration is the one who is obliged to guarantee public service at all times, covering any casualties that occur."

The obvious care deficit that the Pediatric ICU of La Paz had last December is not attributable, therefore, "to the permanence of a specific person in his position, but to the lack of coverage of vacancies that have ended up causing the progressive deterioration of the service".

That the reviled head of the Service continues in his position, adds the judge, does not entail a danger to the general interest, "since said danger is caused by someone who does not guarantee the coverage of positions."

The corollary of the order leaves no room for doubt and, above all, what it does not leave is the Madrid Administration in a very good place: "The happy danger to the general interest [that the Community invoked to dismiss De la Oliva again] "It is easily averted if the Administration fulfills its duty and proceeds to immediately cover all positions, instead of continuing to tolerate (if not protecting) methods of collective pressure that it should never have allowed."

Despite the forcefulness of the judicial arguments and being forced to reinstate De la Oliva as head of the Service twice, the Ministry of Health avoids making any comment on this judicial setback.

"There are still pending resources and until the legal-administrative route is exhausted and the judicial decision is final, we are not going to make any comments on this process," sources from the ministry respond.