More Corruption At Emory?

So here is an interesting additional story on Emory that plays in to the current Grady Hospital story.

Long story short: Kevin Kuritzky was an academically gifted student with a scholarship to Emory. 41 days before graduating from medical school at Emory, Kuritzky was expelled. Emory claimed it was plagiarism, dishonesty, and several other things.

But, digging a little deeper, it appears that Kuritzky’s story intertwines with Grady’s situation and his expulsion might not be all that it seemed. In fact, he’s suing now.

You see, before Emory expelled Kuritzky, he started complaining to school officials about the care being provided at Grady under Emory’s watch. One of things he documented was a seventeen hour wait time before patients coming in with heart attack symptoms were given a cardiac enzyme test. He also documented having to deal with a number of medical conditions without any supervision at all. In a nutshell, Kuritzky complained that he, a med school student, was abandoned to take care of patients without even a resident around to assist him all while the professors who were supposedly working at Grady were off at Emory’s other medical facilities. The university insisted that he recant and he refused. They then expelled him.

That is really a troubling allegation. Obviously, this could be a disgruntled student trying to get back at Emory for expelling him. That is the superficially obvious conclusion. But given what we’re learning about Emory-Grady relationship, Kuritzky’s story is just as plausible.

Technorati Tags: Emory University, Grady Hospital


  1. eehrhart says:


    I wanted to post the link to this mornings live broadcast of the Flex Work week study committee as promised:

    The hearing starts at 9am

  2. bloghound says:

    A judge ruled in Emory’s favor on this one (See mention below from a respected education publication). The Atlanta community needs to stay focused on the larger issues of how to transform Grady so it can become solvent.

    ALLEGED NEGLECT: A lawsuit filed by a former medical student at Emory University who alleged that it neglected patients at its two teaching hospitals was dismissed last month by a Georgia judge who ruled summarily for the university. The former student, Kevin D. Kuritzky, was dismissed from Emory’s medical school 41 days before he was scheduled to graduate, in 2005. He said university officials were angry that he had exposed the neglect of patients and, in retaliation, expelled him. The judge in the case, Robert J. Castellani of the DeKalb County Superior Court, sided with the university, writing, “The allegations brought against the student for dishonesty, and unprofessional and unethical conduct were numerous.”

    Chronicle of Higher Education
    Section: Money & Management
    Volume 54, Issue 7, Page A30

  3. antisauder says:

    To Ron/Kent above:

    You forget that Castellani was an Emory Prof, his wife gets awards from Emory, and he and his wife give money to Emory.
    A few more problems:
    Emory never made numerous allegations against Kevin. Secondly, the judge never disclosed that he had been giving money to Emory during my case. Thirdly, the case wasn’t dismissed – it is in the Appeals Court. Fourthly, Emory had their PR guy, Ron Sauder (who posted above) call the Chronicle and tell them these fallacies. Fifthly, this comment sounds strangely like Kent Alexander’s comment in the AJC this morning about the unsealing – it sounds familiar:

    “The real victim in all of this is Grady, the largest public health hospital in the Southeast. Grady is struggling to survive while misinformation circulates that, unintentionally or intentionally, diverts attention from the real issues.” – Kent Alexander and Tim Jefferson AJC 10/10/07

  4. BubbaRich says:

    Mike, that’s a very sloppy bit of slinging mud about the Emory lawsuit.

    My first question (since we’re facing a similar issue in Doraville politics right now with a city council member making crazy open records requests and wondering why the police department won’t just eat the $30,000 estimated cost by pulling a patrolman off the streets for a year) is were his original requests for documents any more specific than that? I hope so. If not, I’d regard that as an expensive nuisance request, and offer to provide them for him if he’ll pay the expense, as in any open records request. If he doesn’t want to pay, then it looks like he’s trying to use discovery as a cheap fishing expedition.

    You say “thus Emory violated its own policies”, but you don’t actually demonstrate that. In fact, the document you link to doesn’t seem to refer to these subjects at all.

    You are not clear with the request, nor about the exact context of the Judge’s response, but I believe for it to be considered an offense of “spoilation”, it has to have been committed after the documents were requested or could reasonable have been expected to be requested. Is that, in fact, what the Judge is saying happened?

    You don’t make your point at all, here, but I would like to know if Emory has violated policies for some nefarious purposes associated with this lawsuit. I would recommend a more focussed approach on this issue that either quotes an applicable policy that Emory violated, or at the very least explains which points the plaintiff considers applicable.

    Many of those requests that Emory did not satisfy sound like pure fishing expeditions, if more detail was not given. Especially on the last one, what ARE “such matters”?

    You need to give more dates, also, as when the Judge issued his findings on those issues, and then you need to give his grounds for rendering the issue moot, since that’s an important part of the question. If he rendered it moot because “I’m in charge here”, then that’s a good thing to know about the case, but I suspect that he gave some actual grounds for mooting the case.

  5. mike volpe says:

    Bubba let me answer your questions…
    first here is the site regarding their retention policy…

    Here is the part that I believe is important,

    “Records pertaining to any current or anticipated investigation, legal action or proceeding may not be destroyed or otherwise disposed of, even if the scheduled retention period has expired or the disposition date has arrived. Disposition includes but is not limited to the following actions:

    Transfer from one medium to another (i.e. from paper to digital or microfilm)
    Movement to approved offsite/on site storage
    Transfer to University Archives (applies only to that small percentage of the University

Comments are closed.