Here's a story about ... well, about the same sort of life threatening events, and coverup of same that have become a staple of this blog. The linked story hits most of the main points, so I commend you there.

Update: Actually, on further read, the linked story does not address one of the elements of what appears to be the UC pattern in such cases. That element is aggressive management of public opinion, which may consist of slander regarding a concerned party.

Such apparent aggressive management of public opinion may have occurred in the case described below, in the form of Chancellor Reed's comments about the family of Sheri Sangji.

From my own contacts, I believe that such aggressive management of public opinion may be occurring at UCSF, in this case. I've heard that UCSF administrative personnel have been claiming that Dr. Kessler is not fit to be Dean because he "does not work well with others." Given that Dr. Kessler is apparently alleging significant financial improprieties at UCSF, "not working well" with the people there would, in my opinion, be expected.

addendum: for example, comments on this story by "surfs_up." In a story about the U. of California being audited after Dr. Kessler's allegations, we learn that the U. of California has already twice audited itself and found no financial improprieties, but that a subsequent audit by KPMG "stated it was not able to replicate the methodology used by the internal analysts for their reviews." There was apparently enough uncertainty about these audits that PWC has since been retained to perform another audit. Someone with what appears to be an insider opinion regarding Dr. Kessler rebuts that "[Kessler] is a master at crying foul and his wife's a big shot lawyer on the east coast who, lets just say does not have a stellar reputation."

And now, in the pump failure case, the comments to the Orange County Register story about the case contain evidence that the same aggressive management of public opinion is occurring. See comment 8, the one that begins "This is all about a disgruntled employee trying to avoid termination for misbehaving and now making up stories." Given the facts of the case as known, including the facts that the pumps in question had been recalled by the FDA, that apparently UCI kept its pumps despite the recall, that UCI had pump failures during testing that were so severe that just under 1/3 of the pumps had to be removed from service, and more, I think that the content of comment 8 is suspicious at best.

I think I've just documented another element of the pattern.