Mayo Clinic Wins Lawsuit Against Prominent Doctor Michael Joyner After Nine-Day Trial
The Mayo Clinic emerged victorious at the conclusion of a nine-day trial stemming from a lawsuit filed by Dr. Michael Joyner, a leading figure within the organization, over disciplinary actions taken against him. After approximately five hours of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of “No” to all counts presented in the suit, effectively siding with the clinic.
The proceedings, held in Judge Kathy Wallace’s Third Judicial District courtroom, involved testimony from nearly a dozen witnesses and examination of hundreds of pages of evidence, including emails, text messages, and internal Mayo Clinic policy documents. Court Operations Associate Reed Hoben read the verdict aloud in a quiet courtroom, attended by both Dr. Joyner and his legal team, as well as Dr. Carlos Mantilla and Mayo Clinic’s representatives.
The jury specifically rejected claims of a breach of contract related to the clinic’s anti-retaliation policy concerning a 2020 final written warning. They also found no evidence that Dr. Joyner, acting in good faith, reported any compliance concerns or wrongdoing to the Mayo Clinic prior to either the 2020 or 2023 warnings. Further, the jury determined that the 2023 warning was not reliant on the 2020 warning, and that the Mayo Clinic appeal panel did not violate its own procedures by denying Dr. Joyner’s request to submit additional information during his appeal of the 2023 disciplinary action.
The lawsuit, filed in 2023, centered on two “Final Written Warning” actions issued in 2020 and 2023, as well as Dr. Joyner’s subsequent appeal of the latter. Following the verdict, Mayo Clinic spokesperson Andrea Kalmanovitz released a statement, saying, “Mayo Clinic appreciates the jury’s time and thoughtful consideration throughout this trial. We are pleased with the outcome, which reflects the strength of the facts presented. This verdict underscores Mayo Clinic’s steadfast commitment to upholding our values and holding individuals accountable to the high standards that define our organization.”
The origins of the dispute trace back to June 2020, when Dr. Joyner led the nationwide Expanded Access Program (EAP) for convalescent plasma as a potential treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. The program received $54 million in funding from the Center for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and involved collaboration with external partners like MITRE Corp. and Epic. Dr. Joyner alleged that the Mayo Clinic “weaponized” its disciplinary process in retaliation for his raising concerns as a “whistleblower” after MITRE Corp. attempted to access private patient data associated with the project. The Mayo Clinic’s Institutional Review Board did sanction MITRE in September 2020 for actions taken by two of its employees who allegedly attempted to intimidate researchers on Dr. Joyner’s team into granting access to confidential data.
Dr. Joyner also claimed that Dr. John Halamka, president of Mayo Clinic Platform, retaliated against him in 2020. He argued that a 2023 written warning, citing unprofessional behavior and “bullying” toward colleagues, along with what were described as “problematic” public statements, stemmed from this earlier action. He further believed that Dr. Carlos Mantilla, his direct supervisor, retaliated against him in 2023, and that the Mayo Clinic failed to adhere to its own appeal process by refusing to accept additional documentation from him.
Mayo Clinic countered these claims, asserting that Dr. Joyner was disciplined in 2020 due to unprofessional conduct toward collaborating companies and for issuing an “ultimatum” demanding millions of dollars within 48 hours or he would halt his work on COVID-19 treatments. The clinic maintained that Dr. Joyner was seeking an “up-front” payment for his work on the federally-funded EAP research. Dr. Joyner, however, countered that he was requesting compensation for his contributions to a for-profit project, internally known as IMIG or “Project Sangria,” which aimed to convert convalescent plasma-derived immunoglobulin into a marketable COVID-19 treatment. He stated that other Mayo Clinic researchers were similarly compensated for work on for-profit initiatives, and noted that his request came during a period of intense pressure, with his team working 16- to 17-hour days at the height of the pandemic.
The 2023 disciplinary action, according to Mayo Clinic, was prompted by repeated instances of unprofessional behavior toward communications staff and the publication of “problematic” statements that allegedly damaged the clinic’s reputation. The conclusion of this three-year legal battle marks the end of a significant chapter involving one of Mayo Clinic’s most recognizable figures – an anesthesiologist and physiologist with a global reputation and a substantial social media following, boasting over 16,000 followers on the X platform, formerly known as Twitter. Dr. Joyner and his legal team declined to issue a statement following the verdict.
