Lawsuit by State Hospital Medical Director Details How Retaliation Games Keep Hospital Understaffed

Hawai'i Free Press

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

Lawsuit by State Hospital Medical Director Details How Retaliation Games Keep Hospital Understaffed
By Andrew Walden @ 3:31 PM :: 223 Views :: Ethics, Health Care

by Andrew Walden

Four days after being terminated, Dr Brenton Yuen, MD, the former medical director of the Hawaii State Hospital, filed a whistleblower suit in Hawaii First Circuit Court, June 16, 2025. He is represented by local attorney Eric Seitz.

This is paragraph 16-61 of Yuen's complaint:

Plaintiff is a licensed and board-certified medical physician (M.D.) who has been employed to provide psychiatric medical care and services to patients at the Hawai’i State Hospital since 2021 through an employment contract with the locum tenens physician staffing agency Global Medical Staffing, a CHG Healthcare Co.
In or about May, 2023, Plaintiff was promoted to the position of Chief of Psychiatry at HSH by former Medical Director, Bimmie Strausser, M.D. (“Dr. Strausser”) with accompanying increases in authority, responsibilities, and compensation.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that in or around August 2023, Dr. Strausser was terminated from his position and escorted off the HSH campus by armed security for allegedly failing to do enough to improve staffing at HSH.
In or around September 2023, Plaintiff was appointed to Dr. Strausser’s former position as HSH Medical Director.
In or around November 13, 2023, a discharged HSH patient stabbed and killed an HSH nursing assistant at the State Operated Specialized Residential Program (“SOSRP”) on the HSH campus.

After the November 13, 2023, stabbing incident, HSH staff members raised concerns about patient overcrowding and understaffing at HSH as their two highest priorities requiring immediate attention from the Defendants; however, the Defendants failed to act or to respond appropriately to those concerns about overcrowding or understaffing.
In his capacity as Chief of Psychiatry, Plaintiff tried to create more psychiatric positions and to expedite hiring additional providers to mitigate the staffing shortages at HSH.
To that end, Plaintiff proposed hiring psychiatric Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (“APRN”) to fill in the gaps in coverage at HSH after he realized that HSH could not recruit and hire psychiatrists in sufficient quantity through both state employment and contract assignments.
On or about December 4, 2023, Plaintiff sent an email to Naomi Yanagishita (“Ms. Yanagishita”), who was then Acting Associate Administrator for Support Services at HSH and oversaw the HSH Business Office, urging Ms. Yanagishita to expedite the formation of an emergency contract with Prolink, which is a company that supplies hospitals with healthcare workers.
In response, Ms. Yanagishita repeatedly told Plaintiff that his rationale for needing APRNs was inadequate.
On or around March 11, 2024, HSH employed David Fields (“APRN Fields”) through Prolink as its first psychiatric APRN.
After performing his duties and HSH in a satisfactory manner, covering an entire HSH unit (Unit S) housing approximately thirty (30) patients, APRN Fields applied for a permanent position as an HSH psychiatric APRN and was selected for employment with a tentative start date of September 23, 2024.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that on or around September 11, 2024, APRN Fields was advised that he would not be starting as an HSH psychiatric APRN on September 23, 2024, due to an unresolved complaint filed against him by an HSH patient.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the unresolved complaint against APRN Fields was investigated and closed on or about September 27, 2024, but no further action was taken to hire him despite the continuing and dire staffing shortages at HSH.
On or around November 2, 2024, APRN Fields sent an email to an HSH human relations employee named Ryan Okunaga (“Okunaga”), Ms. Yanagishita, Defendant ONA, Defendant LINSCOTT, and Plaintiff requesting a status update on his pending application to be hired by HSH.
Plaintiff responded to APRN Fields’ November 2, 2024, email attesting to his competency as an APRN, and urging that his hiring be expedited.
Despite Plaintiff’s urging, and the continuing staff shortages, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that on or around November 27, 2024, APRN Fields received a formal letter from Defendant LINSCOTT stating that his offer of employment has been rescinded as he was “unable to confirm [his] credentialing.”
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that APRN Fields then filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (“HCRC”) on or around January 31, 2025, alleging that his employment at the HSH was denied based on race/color/ethnicity, and listing Plaintiff as a witness to the discrimination.

On or about September 2, 2024, Prolink referred another APRN to be employed at HSH by the name of Savannah Land (“APRN Land”).
On or about September 20, 2024, APRN Land e-mailed Ms. Yanagishita to inquire about reasonable accommodations that she required and was entitled to receive due to a disability, and Plaintiff, in turn, encouraged and supported APRN Land’s request.
Plaintiff continued to point out to the Defendants that hiring APRNs was critical to enable the HSH staff to provide essential services to patients and insure the safety of everyone at the hospital, and in an e-mail dated November 2, 2024, Plaintiff stated that “our hospital’s psychiatric coverage is dangerously inadequate.”
Thereafter, on November 8, 2024, instead of expediting the hiring of the APRNs, Defendant ONA sent an e-mail to Plaintiff to the HSH business office informing them that HSH would be terminating its contract with Prolink.
As a result of HSH terminating its contract with Prolink, APRN Land and another APRN named Jeanne Blakeslee (“APRN Blakeslee”) were unable to continue working at HSH beyond December 14, 2024.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that on or about March 30, 2025, APRN Land filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (“HCRC”).
On or around December 11, 2024, the HSH business manager informed Plaintiff that “I was told to hold off on hiring any APRN position through the contract. Please contact Naomi [Ms. Yanagishita] if you have any questions.”

On or about January 9, 2025, a locum tenens agency emailed Plaintiff and Defendant ONA about a potential psychiatrist candidate, Chudi Okafor, M.D. (“Dr. Okafor”) who was available to work at HSH.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that on January 23, 2025, Defendant ONA responded to the January 9, 2025, email stating that “at this point, we have no need for another locum’s physician but definitely will reach out to you when the need arises” although HSH was dangerously understaffed at that time.
On or about January 15, 2025, Plaintiff and Adam Stivala, M.D. (“Dr. Stivala”) met with Defendant ONA about her verbalized intention to have afterhours call in HSH covered by just one physician rather than two, as being “too cost-prohibitive.”
In their meeting with Defendant ONA, Plaintiff and Dr. Stivala reminded Defendant ONA that because the HSH patient population was now more than twice what it had been approximately five years ago, with a much larger geographical campus to cover after the opening of a new patient care building in 2022, it was now far too dangerous for just one physician to cover the entire HSH campus.
Plaintiff also informed Defendant ONA that he could not in good conscience support the decision to move to a one-provider model, and if Defendant ONA insists upon doing so, Plaintiff could no longer make and implement the call schedule, which were Plaintiff’s regular responsibilities as Chief of Psychiatry at HSH.
In or around April or May 2024, toxic mold was discovered in the Hale Hoʻolapatient care building at HSH.

Shortly thereafter Plaintiff and the HSH Administrator, Kenneth N. Luke, M.D. (“Dr. Luke”) raised their concerns about the toxic mold to Defendants and sought guidance on how to keep HSH patients and staff safe.
Unfortunately, the Defendants minimized Plaintiff’s and Dr. Luke’s concerns, so Dr. Luke authorized Plaintiff to allow HSH staff to work remotely if and when feasible until the mold outbreak was safely under control.
On or about February 17, 2025, Plaintiff met with Defendant ONA to discuss renewing his locum tenens contract, which was designated to expire on March 31, 2025, at which time Plaintiff asked Defendant ONA if there were any problems with his performance as a psychiatrist and/or as Chief Psychiatrist at HSH, as he has received no complaints about his job performance.
On that occasion Defendant ONA responded that she had no concerns about Plaintiff’s competency but vaguely stated, “you need to be more on my team” and further clarified that Plaintiff should not object to or oppose Dr. ONA’s staffing policies and proposals despite Plaintiff’s reasonable and responsible concerns about overcrowding and understaffing at HSH.
On or around March 5, 2025, Defendant ONA issued a memo to Plaintiff and HSH Acting Chief of Medical Services Grace Ching, M.D., (“Dr. Ching”) instructing them that all requests for “locum needs” are to be e-mailed to HSH Program Coordinator Jones directly, that she will be working with locum companies to find the requested resources, and Plaintiff and Dr. Ching were to refrain from contacting “the locum yourself.”
On or around March 21, 2025, Plaintiff received an email from HSH Registered Nurse (“RN”) Nicole Kaaihue (“RN Kaaihue”) regarding her concerns about an incoming HSH patient admission and placement.

On or around March 21, 2025, Plaintiff responded to RN Kaaihue, stating that he would support her in advocating to HSH administration that the HSH patient’s transfer to a different unit should be expedited for HSH staff safety and necessary patient care.
On or about May 9, 2025, Plaintiff received an email from a concerned HSH staff member about incidents that occurred in which three psychiatric technicians were assaulted on two separate occasions, but a Clinical Safety Plan (“CSP”) was denied by Defendant ONA.
On or around May 23, 2025, Plaintiff received an email from HSH Chief Strategy Officer, Terrance Cheung (“HSH CSO Cheung”), questioning Plaintiff’s recommendations and requesting verification of the calculations and sources for the data Plaintiff compiled in his quarterly governing body report regarding staffing the HSH Department of Psychiatry.
On June 3, 2025, Defendants LINSCOTT and ONA called Plaintiff into an unscheduled meeting to discuss Plaintiff’s email exchanges with HSH CSO Cheung at which time Defendant LINSCOTT chastised Plaintiff for his responsive emails to CSO Cheung and attacked Plaintiff’s character generally, stating for the first time, that Plaintiff has a reputation for being “hostile.”
When Plaintiff asked Defendant LINSCOTT for the source(s) of any complaints that Plaintiff was “hostile,” Defendant LINSCOTT responded that the complaints came “through the back door.”
At the conclusion of Plaintiff’s meeting with Defendants LINSCOTT and ONA on June 3, 2025, Plaintiff was informed that he would be asked to step down from his position as Chief of Psychiatry despite Plaintiff’s statements that he is willing to continue in that position and the broad support Plaintiff has received from HSH staff.

Immediately thereafter Plaintiff’s attorney delivered a letter to Defendant FINK reminding Defendant. FINK that in a previous meeting with Plaintiff Defendant FINK had provided direct and specific assurances that he would protect Plaintiff and would “not condone retaliation” against him for raising concerns about staffing and other issues at HSH.
In response to the letter from Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff was removed from his position as Chief of Psychiatry in a memorandum to HSH staff from Defendant ONA dated June 12, 2025.
Upon receiving Defendant ONA’s June 12, 2025 memorandum, removing Plaintiff from his position as Chief of Psychiatry, Plaintiff’s counsel delivered a second letter to Defendant FINK again requesting him to intervene and to communicate with counsel to discuss and attempt to resolve issues related to and arising from Plaintiff’s removal as Chief of Psychiatry, but Defendant FINK thus far has failed and refused to respond and/or to take any actions to protect Plaintiff from retaliation.

PDF: FULL COMPLAINT

---30---

COVERAGE:

KITV: Lawsuit filed over Hawaii State Hospital staffing crisis | Top Stories | kitv.com

HNN: Psychiatrist sues Hawaii State Hospital claiming retaliation

CB: State Hospital Psychiatrist Says He Was Demoted For Raising Staffing Concerns - Honolulu Civil Beat