By Bob Aller & Brian Mathuma
Posted January 18, 2025
In 2019, Maria Gatchalian was a charge nurse at Kaiser Woodland Hills Medical Center, adjacent to Los Angeles. She worked in the facility’s 18-bed neonatal ICU for ill or premature newborns. Ms. Gatchalian had been a Kaiser charge nurse for the last 13 of her 30 years at this hospital. She held the safety of tiny, highly vulnerable neonates as her priority.
At times, when she found a safety issue, she filed a formal complaint. She was an unrelenting advocate for the safety of newborns. 
Nurse Maria Gatchalian
Various studies show 50%–96% of medical errors are not reported by nurses. Studies also show nurses have a deserved fear of retaliation, reputational harm, and job loss. In addition, nurses often doubt that reporting will lead to positive change.
Yet, Maria continued to speak up about problems at the hospital—even after her supervisors told her not to file such reports. But she felt she would be protected. She had seen posters throughout the hospital informing staff not to be afraid to file reports of unsafe working conditions that did not meet legal requirements. The posters promised protection from retaliation. But the posters did not protect Nurse Gatchalian. She was fired in June 2019.
Ms. Gatchalian Filed Wrongful Termination Lawsuit
In 2021, two years after she was fired, nurse Gatchalian filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. She was represented by attorneys David deRubertis and Taylor Prainito. Ms. Gatchalian’s complaint showed how she raised concerns about understaffing and unsafe working conditions between 2016 and 2019. (Understaffing included non-compliance with California nurse staffing requirements of 1 nurse for 2 patients.) The lawsuit described over 25 interactions with staff, weaving a narrative of complaints and retaliation.
Ms. Gatchalian Filed Official “Unusual Occurrence Report” Complaints
According to her lawyer, David deRubertis, Ms. Gatchalian filed complaints using Kaiser’s “Unusual Occurrence Report” system. This system forwarded the complaint to risk management. Risk management was required to conduct a root cause analysis. Under the rigors of a root cause analysis, the true cause of the problem would likely surface. Some incidents reported by Ms. Gatchalian occurred when understaffing occurred. No nurses were available in the NICU to provide required care.
Understaffing Reported By Nurses Was Widespread At Kaiser Hospitals
Ms. Gatchalian’s attorney argued that Kaiser tried to cover up understaffing. For Kaiser administrators, understaffing was more than a touchy issue.
In October 2023, shortly before Ms. Gatchalian’s trial in December 2023, over 75,000 Kaiser nurses and other employees went on strike in 8 states and DC. Understaffing was a key issue under review in the largest strike in U.S. healthcare history.
Kaiser’s Justification For Firing Nurse Gatchalian
Though Maria had an exemplary employment record over 30 years, in 2019 she violated a hospital policy. Kaiser used that violation as the foundation for her termination. Kaiser attorneys said that Ms. Gatchalian was fired after they received a photo of her during a break. The photo showed she was sitting in a recliner next to an isolette (an enclosed incubator holding a newborn). The photograph showed her using her personal phone with her bare feet resting on the isolette with a baby inside. Placing her bare feet on the isolette violated infection control policies, they said.
The standards for cleanliness in neonatal units are understandably high.
Nevertheless, plaintiff attorney deRubertis argued that though the violation was serious, Kaiser’s reason for firing did not comply with the Kaiser standard for first-time policy infractions. The plaintiff attorney presented cases involving other Kaiser employees who had violated equally serious NICU policies for the first time. They were not fired. They were written up and counseled.
Retaliation Began In 2017
In 2017, Gatchalian learned a patient’s father had a knife when he visited the hospital’s NICU. Ms. Gatchalian’s supervisor, Stella Riddell, RN, was aware of the situation. But she didn’t alert staff. Gatchalian brought this to the attention of the NICU director and the hospital’s union president. Following her report, she claimed her supervisor began to “routinely harass, micromanage, retaliate, and intimidate” her, the complaint says. It started when Riddell told Gatchalian to let other nurses prepare the NICU schedule that Gatchalian had been doing for about five years.
Chief Nursing Executive Wants No More Unusual Occurrence Reports
In another incident, the Director of Maternal Child Health, Jennifer Astasio, told Ms. Gatchalian that the Chief Nursing Executive, Valerie McPherson, said she should not make more unusual occurrence reports.
Gatchalian’s Attorney: The Real Reason Nurse Gatchalian Was Fired!
At trial, Gatchalian’s attorney contended that Nurse Gatchalian was fired because she continued to file “unusual occurrence reports.” She filed these reports even after she learned that the hospital’s chief nurse executive wanted her to stop. deRobertis told the jurors “Her reports opened up a can of worms. If they dealt with her reports the right way, they had to look under the hood. But the thing is, they don’t want to look under the hood because they knew what was under the hood … They were cutting costs, and that was the problem.”
Another Possible Reason Why Kaiser Wanted Maria Fired
One Gatchalian report filed in the months before her termination involved a tragic, botched delivery. The Kaiser doctor conducting the procedure overrode another physician’s request for an emergency C-section because the baby’s heartbeat was dropping precipitously. In addition, the Kaiser doctor overrode the mother’s pleas for a cesarean delivery. The baby survived but suffered severe brain damage. Nurse Gatchalian had witnessed the surgery. She had also witnessed a nurse being told to stop charting (because the notes could benefit a plaintiff lawyer).
Predictably, a malpractice lawsuit was filed against Kaiser. Nurse Gatchalian was scheduled to be deposed. Everyone knew she would be objective about the delivery. She was told by other nurses that the Kaiser Director of Nursing wanted her fired since her testimony would be extremely detrimental for Kaiser. However, just before Nurse Gatchalian’s deposition was scheduled, the malpractice lawsuit was settled. Nurse Gatchalian saw that case as another reason Kaiser wanted her fired.
Attorney’s Closing Words Seem To Have Impacted The Jury
“Your voice, your verdict—it might be able to change Kaiser. It might be able to tell this healthcare corporation and insurance company that the quality of care and the protection of those with the courage to speak out on the quality of care matter more than the business side of what medicine and health insurance have become today.”
After an 11-day trial, the jury reached a verdict in a few hours. Kaiser had apparently grossly underestimated how a jury would react to the facts. Gatchalian was awarded $2.5 million for past and future lost earnings. She was awarded $9 million for past and future emotional distress. But the jury also believed that Kaiser acted with malice, allowing punitive damages. The verdict included $30 million in punitive damages.
Kaiser Refuses To Accept The Jury Verdict, Seeks New Trial!
Kaiser Permanente appealed the jury’s decision. Murtaza Sanwari, the senior vice president at Kaiser Permanente in Woodland Hills, said in a statement: “Her actions were egregious and in violation of our infection control policies and standards. We stand by her termination and are surprised and disappointed in the verdict,” Sanwari said.
Kaiser sought a new trial, claiming that Gatchalian’s attorneys improperly presented the case of the tragic delivery. Kaiser claimed that the case was “highly prejudicial and improperly influenced the jury’s decision, swaying them through bias and emotion.” In a hearing after the trial, Kaiser attorney Julian Poon argued that the jury’s hearing about a mother begging for a caesarean section and the physician refusing to do a caesarean (with the newborn suffering brain damage) had nothing to do with understaffing and retaliation.
But Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter disagreed. “This evidence was relevant to the plaintiff’s claim that she was terminated in part in anticipation of her disclosing these issues. It also was necessary to establish a factual understanding of the environment and practices that surrounded the decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment.”
In March 2024, the judge lowered the jury’s punitive judgment from $30 million to $10 million. Both sides have appealed the judge’s decision and appeals are pending.