Should Prominent Surgeon Be Able to Pseudonymously Sue University of Michigan for Allegedly Improper Suspension?

This is an interesting question. Doe v. Board of RegentsSubmitted yesterday. You can also see the motion to TRO and the motion to allow exhibits to be filed under seal. This sets out the arguments for pseudonymity.

Plaintiff is unable to identify himself because the case involves sensitive information.
Case, because Plaintiff’s outstanding reputation is an important component of ensuring that the public’s trust in him.
Trust him to perform complex operations on their children, as well as Defendants.
threatened to notify the National Practitioner Data Bank about his suspension
His reputation would be irreparably damaged by the Michigan Board of Medicine
Your career. This suit requires disclosure of “the utmost” information.
“Intimacy” and Plaintiff has the right to his identity in public
By not disclosing his identity, he can file.

Although the papers are not clear as to why plaintiff was suspended from his job, here is a paragraph taken directly from the Complaint.

[38.]Michigan Medicine’s leadership was contacted multiple times by Dr. Doe to provide feedback on administrative practices.

[39.] Shortly after Dr. Doe raised his concerns, Michigan Medicine, all of a sudden, decided to bring up three recent non-event matters—none of which had a negative outcome or harmful consequence.

[40.]Michigan Medicine used the three most recent cases as a basis to suspend Dr. Doe’s medical privileges indefinitely. The State of Michigan Board of Medicine advised them that they were going report Doe to the National Practitioner Data Bank, which was done.

While I can sympathize fully with Dr. A, my concerns are not that different to those of an employee plaintiff who alleges that he was improperly fired or suspend, and is concerned about the possibility that his identity will be made public, regardless how unsound the claims. There is a difference between the doctor’s concerns and those of a criminal defendant, who fears that his career will be ruined by the mere existence of the allegations against him. I want to know your thoughts and especially whether you are in any of these categories.

  1. So that the public can monitor what happens in lawsuits, people who file them should need to be identified. This could allow for greater pseudonymity in criminal and civil cases for those who do not voluntarily appear before the court. However, this is not a case that will raise it.
  2. Pseudonymity is a right for the doctor, and all employees who claim they were wrongfully fired or suspended. However, those who file a lawsuit don’t want their names associated with any of these allegations.
  3. This case’s complaint provides sufficient details for enterprising journalists to look into the issue. But pseudonymity means that quick Google searches for doctor’s names will not bring up court dockets, filings and opinions. It’s an acceptable compromise and a win-win situation for employees.
  4. Most employment law plaintiffs should have to sue in their own names, for reasons given in option 1—but this situation is different, “because of the extremely sensitive nature of the case, as Plaintiff’s stellar reputation is a critical component to ensuring the public’s trust for him to operate on their children for complex procedures.”