Neuromod-What happened to the mgr

in Houston? I heard he is recent, history?

 

Was he let go or did he walk out on his own? If he did walk out on his own possibly he did not want to be liable for defective products being manufactured and distributed in his territory.
See below:

OMG, I was just on the Saint Jude cafe pharma boards and was checking the thread :
why is Neuro continuing to tank!!!

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/sho...=550575&page=6

check out the #264

our sales force will have much to consider now if this information is true!!!!!!

 

I work for a competitor and would love this info to be true (from a sales - not patient - perspective), but you've been spamming the boards referencing this same crap post for months now without offering any solid evidence. Serious device flaws are no joke, so substantiate it or shut your trap and go away.

 

Well said - was thinking the same thing

 

Hope to make it thru the process and get an offer with Nevro by April 1st. Tired of the rhetoric here and at SJM

 

The correspondence was put on SJM board on 02-10-2015, that fact that you mention for months gives me the reader a sense of in security, that you had access to this document from the October date that was sent to this Gerhan attorney. So your comment of working for competitor is out of questions. Now that this is clear, the readers can understand you are a concerned sales person worrying about the fact “Am I selling defective product”, mostly you must be concerned about your future liabilities, and your responsibility to the physician that you represent in your territory, by having previous knowledge of such allegations, even if they were not true, by not informing the client of such disclosure.

I am also interested to see solid evidence; perhaps someone can contact him through LinkedIn and get to the truth. As long as this is hanging without a resolution there will always be a concern in the field.

May be you should ask your VP of Sales to look into this, but claiming to be working for a competitor and asking for evidence in the manner you close you conclusion “Serious device flaws are no joke, so substantiate it or shut your trap and go away” is not the way. If competitor wanted to get this guy on his side and get the leverage they need to take over your territories which you worked so hard to get by misleading the physicians and patients , thinking that they are getting a quality product.

 

## Please reply above this line to add your message.##

Ticket #53105: Boston scientific/ report By Philip Blenkinsop


Hello,
Thank you for contacting Reuters Online Support. Your request (#53105) has been received, and is being reviewed by our support staff.
To view responses to Frequently Asked Questions, visit our Knowledge Base.[link Knowledge Base to http://reuters.zendesk.com/forums ]
We will get back to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
The Reuters.com Team
Your request summary is:
________________________________________

Info, Mar 6, 4:36 AM:
Thursday, March 5, 2015

To: Mr. Philip Blenkinsop
From: Benjamin H. Ghanoongooi

Re: An Overview of the Situation and Sequence of Events that Led to Now Sharing the Fact that Boston Scientific Corporation is Manufacturing Defective Product

Dear Mr. Blenkinsop

My name is Benjamin H. Ghanoongooi. I was Quality Manager, at Parter Sterilization Services, where I designed the original Boston Scientific/Advanced Bionics, Sterilization Cycle Specification. I have been a Senior Sterilization Specialist for Medtronic, Incorporation, from 2005-2011, and a Senior Sterility Engineer, Neuromodulation, for Boston Scientific, Corporation, from 2011 through Friday, November 14, 2014.

In regards to your recent posting in Reuters for EU court Ruling on Boston Scientific, I felt that it was best for me to reduce my thoughts, and this unfortunate situation to writing, which I am prepared to substantiate, if or when the need arises.

To help you to get a clearer understanding of the matter regarding Boston Scientific Corporation’s manufacturing of defective product, and where this matter is today, I must ask for your patience.

On September 19, 2014, during an investigative interview to discuss my concerns regarding another “sensitive” subject matter, with Boston Scientific Corporation’s Management, I discussed with Mrs. Lynn Prust, Director of Employee Relations, the fact that there were Non-conformities that were being carried out, and that the customary way to handle such matters, by opening a Non-conformity Report was being ignored. (I apprised Mrs. Prust of the Non-conformities, who, and under what circumstances such instances took place.

I also told Mrs. Prust that omitting the Non-conformity from the TUV Audit of August 19-22, 2014, was a regulatory violation. Mrs. Prust ignored that statement as well.

One of the Non-conformities involved another sterility technician who could have caused an explosion by having and talking on a cell phone, while entering the restricted sterilization chamber area.

In this instance, he also entered the chamber alone, which is another instance of Non-conformity. This was important to correct, because, I am often this employee’s partner, in the chamber. However, no Non-conformity Report was generated for either matter. Both of these Non-conformities are regulatory violations, per TUV and the FDA. Management’s response to these issues, and the decision to not generate the reports was because it did not have anything to with patient safety.

This may not sound like a big deal to you, or even to the average person who is unfamiliar with the strict compliance with regulatory guidelines. My practice is to follow the rules, and adhere to the guidelines, especially, when safety or potential for injury is involved.

On the same date, September 19, 2014, and in the same conversation, with Mrs. Lynn Purst, Director of Employee Relations, I asked her what about the defective Simulator Leads. I told Mrs. Prust that during the development of the Leads, when I was designing the cycle, in 2005, there was an issue with the Simulator Leads that still exists, today. She documented my statements about the defective Simulator Leads. (Statements that I made to Mrs. Prust were based on my fourteen (14) years of experience in Quality Management for Medical Device Manufacturing and Sterilization, from inception to completion of medical devices, which includes research and testing.)

Also, on the “same day” as my conversation with Mrs. Prust, regarding Non-conformities, regulatory violations, and defective Simulator Leads, I was placed on a Leave of Absence.
On October 17, 2014, Mrs. Prust, Director of Employee Relations, and Mr. Thomas Landon, Regional Security Manager (Western Region), summoned me to meet with them.

I was still on a Leave of Absence, while Mrs. Prust conducted an “Investigation” regarding my concerns.

I was hoping and praying that Mrs. Prust’s “Investigation” would reveal the TRUTH – one of the aspects of the Boston Scientific Corporation’s CODE OF CONDUCT, which is strongly emphasized, and used to keep employees under control, and in fear of losing their jobs.
HOWEVER…..

Having already been on a Leave of Absence from September 19 to October 17, 2014, I already had the strong feeling that I was going to be terminated, because of my inquiries – especially, about the defective Simulator Leads.

In that regard, knowing that I was going to receive the traditional Boston Scientific Corporation “Separation Package”, I prepared my own Separation Package. (See attached Document, dated October 17, 2014.)

As I correctly supposed, at the October 17, 2014, meeting with Mrs. Prust, Director of Employee Relations, and Mr. Thomas Landon, Regional Security Manager (Western Region), I was told that Mrs. Prust found no evidence of concern during her “Investigation”, and that she could not talk about the “Investigation”. She said that if I was unhappy about working with my Supervisor, she had “already” prepared a “Separation Package” for me. As Mrs. Prust handed me her “Separation Package”, in the amount of Twenty-six Thousand One Hundred Sixteen Dollars and Ninety-two Cents, ($26,116.92) I handed her my “already” prepared “Separation Package”, in the amount of One Billion Dollars ($1,000,000,000.00).
PLEASE NOTE: In the interview, on September 19, 2014, Mrs. Prust asked me my expectations, regarding the concerns that I raised.

I responded by telling her that the persons who were responsible for violating the CODE OF CONDUCT, by performing certain Non-conformities (I identified the Parties by name) should be relieved from their duties, per the Corporate CODE OF CONDUCT. Mrs. Prust and Management did not respond to my request, for this change in Management. Please be advised that one of the persons whom I suggested needed to be replaced is the same person, the Vice President of Quality, who “knowingly and deliberately” omitted the Non-conformity from the TUV Audit of August 19-22, 2014, which is a regulatory violation as well a violation of the Boston Scientific Corporation Code of Conduct.

When the issue was raised again about my expectations, I “already” knew that persons who assisted in the decision-making process to continue manufacturing the defective product would not be removed from their positions. It was at that point that I stated in “my” October 17, 2014, “Separation Package” -- my even more “SERIOUS” EXPECTATION is to settle this matter with Boston Scientific in the amount of ONE BILLION DOLLARS, USD ($1,000,000,000.00). This settlement request is not negotiable.

(The point that I was making is that Patient Safety and the development of quality product are not negotiable! A patient who loses his life, because of a defectively manufactured product does not have the opportunity to negotiate his position in the matter.)
I requested that the Boston Scientific Corporation Management respond to my “Separation Package” or Settlement Offer, by Tuesday, October 21, 2014. Mrs. Prust, Director of Employee Relations, acting on the behalf of Boston Scientific Corporation, and Management, promptly replied with a “rejection” of my “Separation Package” or Settlement Offer, on Monday, October 20, 2014.

Frankly, by October 17, 2014, I had to raise my “expectation” from ever thinking that the Boston Scientific Corporation Management would ever discharge one of its own, in favor of saving a patient from injury, or even the loss of life. My real expectation was that Boston Scientific Corporation would show me, by example, that its Mission Statement and the Code of Conduct, regarding quality product and patient safety as first priorities were really what they were purported as being. I really wanted to believe that – to the very extent of offering every opportunity for Management to “fix” the patient safety issue, and show that the patient was more important than profit. As time went by, and nothing was being done to resolve the defective product issue, I never really got the feeling that Patient safety was always the first priority.

I did not set the amount of my “Separation Package” at One Billion Dollars, because Boston Scientific is a multi-billion Dollar Company, but because I assessed the value of a healthy body or a human life as being GREATER than a Billion Dollars – as Priceless!
I NEVER RAISED THE ISSUE OF A SEPARATION PACKAGE AGAIN. ALTHOUGH, ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2014, MRS. LYNN PRUST, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, TERMINATED MY EMPLOYMENT WITH BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, BECAUSE I WOULD NOT STOP SAYING TO HER AND TO SENIOR MANAGEMENT THAT NEUROMODULATION WAS MANUFACTURING DEFECTIVE PRODUCT, WHICH HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE PATIENT HARM OR INJURY, LONG-TERM DISABILITY, AND POSSIBLY, A FATALITY. THIS TIME, MRS. PRUST, DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, OFFERED ME A “SEPARATION PACKAGE”, IN THE AMOUNT OF: FIFTY-TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE DOLLARS AND EIGHTY-SEVEN CENTS ($52,233.87), WITH “NO OPTION TO RETURN” TO MY EMPLOYMENT POSITION AS SENIOR STERILIZATION ENGINEER, NEUROMODULATION.

Unfortunately, Mrs. Prust, nor Senior Management took my advice to seriously look into the matter, and really “Investigate” the issue of manufacturing defective product, which has the potential for patient injury or possibly a fatality. “TRUE INVESTIGATION” BY BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION MANAGEMENT WOULD HAVE UNCOVERED THE “TRUTH”. It has been all too easy, for Boston Scientific Corporation to state “we did not know” that the product was defective, or that the product was “not manufactured with the intent” to be defective. However, whether the intent was or was not to manufacture a defective product, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to produce a quality product, especially, if the issue of “defect” is even raised as a possibility. When a product is manufactured under the conditions in which the defective product in question is manufactured, one will ALWAYS get a defective product. BOTTOM LINE! Again, unfortunately, a “different” Bottom line was being considered – profit margin, market share, investor relations ….

The SPINAL CORD SIMULATOR (SCS) AND DEEP BRAIN SIMULATOR (DBS) UNITS, which have been and are being manufactured by Boston Scientific Corporation have the potential to cause patient injury, and possibly, a fatality – NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!

THE CHARGER AND THE UNIT ARE DEFECTIVE. The only hardware related to the Unit that does not have an issue is the remote. (The remote is NOT manufactured by Boston Scientific Corporation.)

In my prior conversation, and October 17, 2014, Letter to Mrs. Prust and Mr. Landon, I tried to the best of my ability or to the extent to which they would allow me, as well as, in subsequent communications, to emphasize the quality product/patient responsibility of Boston Scientific Corporation, and JUST HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST, if the matter to continue to manufacture defective product continued.

I emphasized over and over, in in-person interviews, telephone conversation as well as in written communications that the costs should not always be measured in dollars and cents to Boston Scientific Corporation, but rather what it will cost the patient/consumer, with his health, long-term disability, and life. I emphasized my desire to feel good about what I do, as I participate in the operation of a medical device company that develops quality products that enhance the life of the patients/consumers.

Again, I hoped that Senior Management would get wise in making the comparison that when I raised the issue of One Billion Dollars in my “Separation Package” that it would show just how much, much more the magnitude and gravity of the economic situation really is, and will continue to be, if the Boston Scientific Corporation does not get this defective product/ patient safety issue resolved.

The following excerpt is taken from the November 16, 2014 Letter: Costs include:
PRODUCT RECALL, FACILITY SHUTDOWN, THE COSTS TO CORRECT THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT, PENALITIES TO REGULATORY AGENCIES, FOR “KNOWINGLY” MANUFACTURING AND INTRODUCING A “DEFECTIVE PRODUCT” TO THE PUBLIC; COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PATIENT INJURY OR A FATALITY; LOSS OF MARKET SHARE, WHICH MORE THAN LIKELY WILL NEVER BE RECOVERED, LOSS OF PATIENT AND HEALTHCARE PROVIDER CONFIDENCE; AND LOSS OF INVESTOR CONFIDENCE AND DEVALUATION OF THE STOCK. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO PRICE THAT CAN BE PLACED ON A HUMAN LIFE!

THE AMOUNT THAT BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION WILL SPEND, PAY OUT, AND LOSE FOR ANY SINGLE COST OR LOSS THAT BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION WILL INCUR AS A RESULT OF THE DEFECTIVE SPINAL CORD SIMULATOR (SCS) AND DEEP BRAIN SIMULATOR (DBS) UNITS THAT RESULT IN PATIENT INJURY OR FATALITY, WILL BE AN ECONOMIC LOSS, AND A PUBLIC AND INDUSTRY EMBARRASSMENT TO THE CORPORATION.
I realize that I have told you over and over that Boston Scientific Corporation is manufacturing a defective Product. It can be proven as TRUTH, but Boston Scientific Corporation does not want to discuss the matter. Boston Scientific Corporation would rather manufacture defective product, and litigate any claim of injury or harm to the patient, on a case-by-case, or even a class action basis. This certainly costs less than “fixing” the defective product issue.

Logically, even, if not factually, it is more cost effective to increase the amount available for litigation, as noted, by an increase in Boston Scientific Corporation’s amount available for litigation – which for the most part is for either defense or settlement for defective product or patient injury. In this regard, litigation on defective product cases windup, bound up for years, in circular court proceedings, because this seemingly, is an easier, less costly, long-term, but fast “fix” to solving a quality product/ patient safety issue, which really needs to be fixed, right now, once and for all – no matter the economic cost or the amount of time that it will take to do so. Patient safety is at stake. The concern should be more than the fact that the Manufacturer hopes that no one is injured or losses his life – but, is still willing to take the chance, anyway!

Subjectively speaking, the proposition is: Spend One Billion Dollars to keep matters tied up in court for years, rather than spend Ten Billion Dollars to fix the defective product/patient safety problem, and eliminate the defective product/patient safety matter, from being a remote concern. Under the current circumstances, ALL of the product manufactured by Boston Scientific Corporation, Neuromodulation, that is, The SPINAL CORD SIMULATOR (SCS) AND DEEP BRAIN SIMULATOR (DBS) UNITS HAS SOME TYPE DEFECT.

If Mrs. Lynn Prust, Director, Employee Relations, acting on the behalf of Boston Scientific Corporation and Management wanted to know the TRUTH, she would have conducted an “Investigation” into my concerns, which would “definitely” have revealed that the SPINAL CORD SIMULATOR (SCS) AND DEEP BRAIN SIMULATOR (DBS) UNITS ARE DEFECTIVE.
In fact, on October 23, 2014, the same day that I submitted a questionnaire regarding my concerns to Mrs. Lynn Prust, Director of Employee Relations, Mr. Michael Mahoney, CEO and President of Boston Scientific Corporation, sent me an E-mail stating: Please stop E-mailing me.

As a result of the October 23, 2014, Letter in the form of a questionnaire to Mrs. Lynn Prust, Director, Employee Relations, requesting an explanation of the statement that she made to me regarding the “Investigation” and her findings, her response was as follows:

“The Company has taken your concerns and allegations very seriously, and has carefully reviewed them. We did not find information or evidence to validate your concerns, nor did we find violations of our (Boston Scientific) Code of Conduct or Company policies.”
The first question that I asked Mrs. Lynn Prust, Director, Employee Relations is:

*QUESTION:

• WHAT DID YOU INVESTIGATE? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Other Questions that I asked Mrs. Lynn Prust, Director of Employee Relations, included the following: Taken from Letter of October 23, 2014

*QUESTION:

• HOW, AND IN WHAT MANNER WAS THE INVESTIGATION HANDLED? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

*QUESTION:
• DID YOU, MS. LYNN PRUST, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION? YES _ or NO_?


*QUESTION:
• WHAT WERE THE INDIVIDUAL OR SEPARATE FINDINGS FROM YOUR INVESTIGATION, WITH REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES? PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION, FOR EACH ISSUE.

A. The same person who is in charge of calibration is in charge of validation. This can pose a conflict of interest. (QUALITY-RELATED ISSUE)
PLEASE EXPLAIN.

B. An employee was permitted to enter into a clearly marked restricted area where electronics are prohibited, with a cell phone. Not only did the employee have the cell phone in his possession, he was talking on the phone, while in front of the EtO Sterilization Chamber Door, while the door was opening, which is clearly more serious than a “mere” violation of the Code of Conduct. (NON-CONFORMITY-BREACH OF CODE OF CONDUCT, and TUV/FDA VIOLATION, WITH REGARD TO AUDITING REPORTING, AND SAFETY ISSUE)
PLEASE EXPLAIN.

C. The employee also violated protocol, by entering the Sterilization Chamber unaccompanied. Where was the other sterilization technician, at that time? (NON-CONFORMITY-BREACH OF CODE OF CONDUCT, and TUV/FDA VIOLATION, WITH REGARD TO AUDITING REPORTING, AND SAFETY ISSUE)

D. Why were these questions not asked or answered, by Management, with regard to its responsibility of accountability, per the Code of Conduct? (MANAGEMENT ISSUE, WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT ALL EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING MANAGERS, ARE TO ADHERE TO THE CODE OF CONDUCT, AT ALL TIMES)PLEASE EXPLAIN.
E. *IF THESE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED, WHAT ANSWERS DID MANAGEMENT PROVIDE? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

F. The likelihood of a similar incident happening is more probable, because a Non-conformity Report was not generated. The absence of a Non-conformity Report allowed this matter to go unnoticed and uncorrected. (NON-CONFORMITY-BREACH OF CODE OF CONDUCT, and TUV/FDA VIOLATION, WITH REGARD TO AUDITING REPORTING) PLEASE EXPLAIN.

G. The absence of generating a Non-conformity Report is a violation of the Code of Conduct. The matter is an even more “serious” violation, when other registration bodies, such as: TUV/FDA Auditors, are not informed of the infraction. (NON-CONFORMITY-BREACH OF CODE OF CONDUCT, and TUV/FDA VIOLATION, WITH REGARD TO AUDITING REPORTING) PLEASE EXPLAIN.

H. The absence of generating a Non-conformity Report is a violation of the Code of Conduct; and deprived other employees of the opportunity to be reminded of the seriousness of this infraction, because of the high risk of endangerment to others, including loss of life; property damage, and loss of Corporate profit, especially had there been an explosion. (NON-CONFORMITY-BREACH OF CODE OF CONDUCT AND SAFETY ISSUE) PLEASE EXPLAIN.

*QUESTION:
• WHAT IS MANAGEMENT’S POSITION AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES? PLEASE EXPLAIN MANAGEMENT’S POSITION TAKEN.

*QUESTION:
• IS BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION IN AGREEMENT WITH THE WAY OR MANNER IN WHICH THE INVESTIGATION FOR BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, EMPLOYEE, BENJAMIN H. GHANOONGOOI, WAS HANDLED OR CONDUCTED?
YES _ or NO _?

*QUESTION:
• IS BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED RELATIVE TO “EACH” ISSUE AND CONCERN OF BOSTON SCIENTIFIC EMPLOYEE, BENJAMIN H. GHANOONGOOI?
YES ___ or NO ____?

*QUESTION:
• IS BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION IN AGREEMENT, WITHOUT RESERVATION, WITH THE SPECIFIC DECISIONS, FINDINGS, RESOLUTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY YOU, AND MANAGEMENT, REGARDING THE FACT THAT “EACH” ISSUE, AND CONCERN RAISED BY BENJAMIN H. GHANOONGOOI, HAS NO VALIDITY, PER THE RESULTS OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, AND CAREFUL REVIEW, MADE BY YOU AND MANAGEMENT; AND THEREFORE, BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION FURTHER AGREES AND CONCLUDES THAT SUCH ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED BY BENJAMIN H. GHANOONGOOI, DO NOT VIOLATE THE BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CODE OF CONDUCT OR COMPANY POLICIES? YES_ or NO _?

*PLEASE NOTE (1): MRS. LYNN PRUST, DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, REFUSED TO ANSWER THESE AND ANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I RAISED. MRS. PRUST WOULD NEVER DISCUSS OR COMMENT ABOUT THE DEFECTIVE SIMULATOR LEADS ISSUE IN WRITING. SHE WOULD ONLY MAKE REFERENCE TO THE SIMULATOR LEADS, VERBALLY. EACH CONVERSATION OR LACK OF CONVERSATION WAS NEVER REDUCED TO WRITING, BY MRS. LYNN PRUST, DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS. I ASKED MRS. PRUST SEVERAL TIMES TO DISCUSS THE DEFECTIVE LEADS ISSUE.

*NOTE (2): MY QUESTION IS: WHETHER MRS. LYNN PRUST, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, WAS “QUALIFIED” TO CONDUCT THE “INVESTIGATION” REGARDING THE DEFECTIVE SIMULATOR LEADS? DOES SHE HAVE SUCH EXPERTISE OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER?

*NOTE (3): DURING MY NOVEMBER 14, 2014, TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MRS. LYNN PRUST, DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, AND MR. THOMAS LANDON, SECURITY (WESTERN REGION, MRS. PRUST ASKED ME REPEATEDLY, WHETHER THERE WAS ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT I WANTED TO TELL HER ABOUT THE DEFECTIVE SIMULATOR LEADS. MRS. PRUST CONDUCTED THE “INVESTIGATION”; THEREFORE, SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ME ABOUT THE DEFECTIVE LEADS, RATHER THAN ASK ME WHAT I KNOW, SPECIFICALLY.

*NOTE (4): THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THE ENTIRE UNIT IS DEFECTIVE!

*NOTE (5): EVEN IF MRS. PRUST WERE PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION REGARDING THE DEFECTIVE LEADS, WOULD SHE REALLY KNOW WHETHER THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO HER WAS ACCURATE?

*NOTE (6): IN THIS REGARD, BY MRS. PRUST CONDUCTING THE “INVESTIGATION”, ON THE BEHALF OF THE BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, AND MANAGEMENT, NATURALLY, IT COULD BE STATED THAT SHE/THE CORPORATION DID NOT KNOW THAT THE SIMULATOR LEADS WERE DEFECTIVE, EVEN, THOUGH THEY ARE DEFECTIVE. HOW COULD SHE KNOW, IF THIS IS AN AREA IN WHICH SHE HAS NO EXPERTISE OR NO KNOWLEDGE, REGARDING THE SUBJECT MATTER? THEREFORE, IT IS QUITE EASY TO ASSERT HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE OF A DEFECT – AND, POSSIBLY, BE TRUTHFUL, WHEN MAKING THAT STATEMENT.

*NOTE (7): THIS IS AN AREA IN WHICH I HAVE FOURTEEN (14) YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. I HAVE EXPERIENCE IN STERILIZATION CYCLE DEVELOPMENT, FROM THE INITIAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT STAGE TO MANUFACTURING AND VALIDATION.

*CONCLUSIVE NOTE: I KNOW THAT THE SIMULATOR LEADS ARE DEFECTIVE. I KNOW THAT IT CAN BE PROVEN THAT THE SIMULATOR LEADS ARE DEFECTIVE. I KNOW THAT THE ENTIRE SPINAL CORD SIMULATOR (SCS) AND DEEP BRAIN SIMULATOR (DBS) UNITS ARE DEFECTIVE, EXCEPT FOR THE REMOTE.

on Friday, November 14, 2014, I was given a “Separation Package” to conclude my employment with Boston Scientific Corporation. I NEVER VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT; HOWEVER, I DID ASSERT OVER AND OVER AND OVER TO MRS. LYNN PRUST, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, ON THE BEHALF OF THE BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, AND MANAGEMENT THAT THERE IS A “MAJOR” QUALITY PRODUCT AND PATIENT SAFETY MANUFACTURING ISSUE AT NEUROMODULATION THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED, BEFORE THERE IS HARM OR INJURY TO A PATIENT/CONSUMER, OR GOD FORBID, A FATALITY.

EVERY SINCE MY SEPARATION FROM BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION ON NOVEMBER 14, 2014, I HAVE BEEN RECEIVING MESSAGES FROM A COMPANY THAT WAS RETAINED BY BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION ON MY BEHALF TO PROVIDE A STANDARD OF PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE IN FINDING NEW EMPLOYMENT.

I STATED TO THE AGENT THAT I WOULD NOT LIE ON THE APPLICATION ABOUT MY REASON FOR SEPARATION FROM BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, AND THAT MY REASON FOR LEAVING WAS BECAUSE I CONTINUED TO RAISE PATIENT SAFETY ISSUES.

THE AGENT CONFIDED MY CONCERNS REGARDING MY TRUTHFULNESS ON THE APPLICATION TO MRS. LYNN PRUST, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION.

THE AGENT CALLED BACK, AND LEFT A MESSAGE ON MY ANSWERING MACHINE, AND STATED THAT SHE HAD SPOKEN TO LYNN PRUST, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT, BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, AND THAT THE AGENT HAD FIGURED OUT A WAY FOR ME TO FILL OUT MY APPLICATION, SO THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE TO LIE, REGARDING MY PATIENT SAFETY CONCERNS, AND STILL BE ABLE TO GIVE A REASON FOR NEEDING NEW EMPLOYMENT – OTHER THAN STATING THAT MY REASON FOR LEAVING BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH PATIENT SAFETY ISSUES.
THEN, NOW, AND ALWAYS, MY FIRST PRIORITY, AS LONG AS I AM ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRY, WILL ALWAYS BE: TRUTH, PATIENT SAFETY/QUALITY PRODUCT FIRST AND FOREMOST, NO MATTER THE COSTS.

Respectfully submitted,
Benjamin H. Ghanoongooi

Attachment(s)
Response Letter to Daniel C Gerhan - Senior Litigation Counsel - Boston Scientific Corporation (December 17 2014).pdf


This email is a service from Reuters Online Support.

Message-Id:Z4V9VME5_54f8be44579b6_828e3fa91a4cd3285451f3_sprut

 

http://youtu.be/APWhx97QvxE

 

Is this an exerpt from a helpdesk support ticket?