Applause is in order**

Good job! The jury assigned to figure out whether Dr. Heather Krell or Dr. David Martorano saw through all the bull and psychiatry mumbo jumbo and awarded neither party any money.

A Los Angeles jury Thursday found that UCLA’s psychiatry department did not sexually harass a former resident who alleged that he lost a coveted job because he had an affair with his supervisor.

But the jurors also did not believe the supervisor’s assertion that Dr. David Martorano slandered her by making up the affair, which Martorano testified included oral sex in parked cars. The supervisor denies it.

I’m still very impressed with Dr. Krell’s ability to avoid the photographers. Of course, if I’d been there, I would have got her picture, no doubt. Alas – the trial is over, with a verdict tantamount to “neither of you are in the right and neither of you get a prize.” I swear, I wish we could reach this step much faster – we might be able to unclog our court system. Too many lawsuits – like the one I was a juror on – is essentially a spat between friends/colleagues.

However, I gotta wonder – how did Dr. Dave’s wife feel about all this explicit testimony? Apparently they’re newlyweds – according to this page on the WeddingChannel, they were scheduled to get married just last November. I am also curious as to whether Dr. Krell is married.

Also, what about the previous, unrelated sexual harassment lawsuit with a multi-million jury award? Hm. So many questions, so few answers.

*Dr. Krell breaks her silence! She left me a comment tonight:

Being wrongly accused of sexual harassment, I was interested in principle not money. I countersued Dr. Martorano for $1.00.

-Heather Krell MD,MPH
Are you interested in possibly talking about the case, Dr. Krell?

*Dr. Krell left me this last message early this morning:

While my UCLA Colleagues and I are very pleased with the outcome, it was “unfortunate‚Äù that we had to go to a courtroom to defend our actions against “baseless accusation.”

Ah well. Time for everyone to start living their lives.

9 thoughts on “Applause is in order**

  1. Please fee free to post the following statement: ‚ÄúWhile my UCLA Colleagues and I are very pleased with the outcome, it was “unfortunate‚Äù that we had to go to a courtroom to defend our actions against “baseless accusation.”

    (BTW – if you could change the typo – the word used should be priniciple (not principal as quoted in your column) it’d be much appreciated!)

  2. Dr. Martorano just spent over two years suing both UCLA and his supervisor for Sexual Harrassment. A jury just denied both of Dr. Martorano’s lawsuits and determined that no law was violated by both UCLA or Dr. Krell.
    Dr. Krell was vindicated because Dr. Martorano’s lawsuits were categorized as baseless accusations. UCLA’s theory of why Dr. Martorano filed suit was solely because of Dr. Martorano’s narcissistic personality disorder.
    Judging from Dr. Martorano’s feelings of being vindicated solely because a jury believed that he had sex with a woman, leaves little doubt that UCLA was right about Dr. Martorano. It’s just a shame that hundreds of thousands of dollars and precious jury time was wasted in order for that theory to be proven.

  3. I have known Heather Krell since we were very young. She is not married and was engaged once when living in Phila. She broke it off.

  4. Darlene,

    I find it interesting that you thought the whole case was worth looking up on the internet researching so diligently, but never even called me to ask what I thought about the case, or why I filed it. I am happy to take your call, as is my wife, Melissa.

    In regards to divining whether or not I have a personality disorder based on my response to the jury verdict, (and despite my own psychiatrist’s testimony to the contrary) I can say only this. As I testified, UCLA took my position away based on a lie, a lie told by Dr. Krell. The lie was that I was a liar. I felt that my name was cleared when jurors determined that I had not lied 12-0.

    About whether or not it was sexual harassment, I would recommend that you read the trial briefs, review supporting evidence, and determine for yourself whether or not there was evidence of my claim. I completely understand how the Jury reached their verdict based on the information at hand. However, UCLA’s statement that the jury evaluated the process of investigation is patently untrue. The nature of their investigation (a separate FEHA statute) was eliminated in a pretrial motion.

    In fact, access to much of the information about this case was excluded from trial. Specifically, misrepresentations Dr. Krell was alleged to have made as to her gender preferences, and the fact that she had filed a contemporaneous complaint against Dr. Leucther. Personally, I have always believed that this is why UCLA refused to complete their investigation of my claim. I sued the University because of this refusal. The Times chose to focus on the salacious aspects of the case rather than the substance.

    UCLA appeared far more concerned with being compelled to follow the code of conduct and terminating Dr. Krell for having a relationship with me, than they were with concluding the investigation. Had she been fired for the relationship I alleged, she might well have filed a wrongful termination suit for tens of millions of dollars. Basically, by their own policy they would have been forced to terminate her for the conduct, so they never finished the investigation. The failure to conclude the investigation was improper and a violation of their policies, and they stipulated that they did not issue a conclusion or the report, but simply stopped the process. (I believe the preliminary report is also on file with the courts, and it did conclude that there was a relationship, but that it was not harassment.)

    Finally, if truth is what you seek, you need look no further than Dr. Krell‚Äôs own statement, as to her flexible view of the truth. She claims that she countersued for only $1.00. Her initial cross-complaint claimed damages in excess of $1,000,000, a claim which stood for nearly two years, and was only amended just before trial. It appears Dr. Heather Krell’s “principals” are at crossed purposes.

  5. Does the woman who wrote this article even speak english? It doesn’t make any sense. What is the first sentence? A fragment or just some random stringing together of words…

  6. Hi Darleene,

    This is David’s wife, Melissa. I don’t know if you still have any interest in this subject, but I just happened to see some of the other comments posted. I had a few things on my mind that I thought I’d share with you about my husband, the trial, and Dr. Heather Krell.
    First of all, the explicit nature of the case didn’t bother me. My husband is a very honest man and he made sure I knew everything before I went into that courtroom. Listening to attorneys twist the facts into lewd and salacious soap opera material is par for the course, which is unfortunate when you think about the state of our legal system today. Secondly, we are both so happy it’s over. Of course, when you look at the facts of the case, it’s disappointing that justice was not served. It is a wonderful thing, though, when a jury faces you afterwards and shakes your hand and tells you “we believed you were telling the truth.” I’ll tell you what- nobody shook Heather Krell’s hand that day.
    Darleene, you were wondering about Heather Krell’s likeness and congratulated her on avoiding the cameras. I have news for you- I don’t think there was any interest on the part of the L.A. Times to photograph her. There are jokes I could make here about lenses cracking and such…but…well, you get my drift. My husband said to me on the first day I came to the courthouse, “Of the things I’m most ashamed of in my life, you having to see her face is one of them.” As to my husband filing this case because his ego could not stand the blow of this woman denying she had sex with him- TRUST ME on this one, Darleene. This is a woman with whom you would be embarrassed to admit to your closest buddies you had sex. This case was about the abuse of power by a woman who became enraged when she realized she was nothing more than a convenient late night hook-up. The fact that the LA Times wrote the articles they wrote is a sad indictment of journalism today, if you can even call it that. I‚Äôve read more substantial stories in US Weekly while standing in line at the grocery store.
    Lastly- as to the anonymous blogger who cannot write to save her life and has an inordinate fondness for quotation marks, but is very confused as to their implications, I would be happy to tutor her. Also, “Anonymous,” as you so bravely like to blog- listening to you pronounce the word “collegial” with a hard “G” sound over and over in that LA court room was almost more painful than having to sit through hours of your perjurus testimony.

  7. Vinessa W

    Dr. Martorano has been exposed since the trial as a liar, a sociopath, a cheater, and an unethical doctor. He and his loving wife above, who happens to be an ex wife’s sister, are now divorced. Time reveals all. One doctor got her life and career ruined by a false accusation and greed, and another walked away knowing forever that he not only lost in court but lost in life as well. He should return to d-list Opera.

  8. Oliver

    After this case, Heather Krell filed a lawsuit against UCLA for sexual harassment and lost.

Comments are closed.