Lark v. Montgomery Hospice Inc
Citation | 414 Md. 215,994 A.2d 968 |
Decision Date | 13 May 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 140 Sept.Term,2007.,140 Sept.Term |
Parties | Susan Eynon LARKv.MONTGOMERY HOSPICE, INC. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Lee Boothby, Washington, DC, for Appellant.
Brief of Public Justice Center, Voices for Quality Care, Inc., United Seniors of Maryland, Maryland Nurses Coalition, and American College of Nurses-Midwives as Amici Curiae for Appellant: Gregory P. Care, Esquire, Francis D. Murnaghan, Jr., Appellate Advocate Fellow, Baltimore, MD.
Lauri E. Cleary (Marc R. Engel and Michael J. Neary of Lerch, Early & Brewer, Chartered, Bethesda, MD), on brief for Appellee.
ARGUED BEFORE: BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, IRMA S. RAKER, (Retired, Specially Assigned) and DALE R. CATHELL, (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
The parties to this appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,1 Susan Eynon Lark (Appellant), and Montgomery Hospice Inc. (Appellee), present us with two questions of statutory interpretation. 2 We must determine whether a former employee is entitled to assert a wrongful discharge action under the Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act (1) even if he or she never reported to an external board “an activity, policy, or practice of the [former] employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation;” and/or (2) the “unlawful acts” that he or she threatened to report were errors committed by fellow employees who did not have the authority to establish the former employer's “policy, or practice.” For the reasons that follow, we hold that (1) the report of unlawful acts to an external board is not a condition precedent to a civil action under the Act, and (2) when a fellow employee's repeated violation of a law, rule, or regulation is reported to a supervisor, the failure or refusal to correct the violation constitutes a prohibited act of the employer. We shall therefore vacate the summary judgment entered against Appellant and in favor of Appellee, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Appellant filed a three count SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT that included the following assertions:
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, which was accompanied by a Memorandum that included the following arguments:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mathews v. Choptank Cmty. Health Sys.
...protected 'licensed and certified' healthcare employees that reported violations...") (citing Lark v. Montgomery Hospice, 414 Md. 215, 229-30, 994 A.2d 968, 976-77 (2010)). According to defendant, plaintiff was not an "employee" under the HCWWPA's definition of employee because she was not ......
-
Romeka v. RadAmerica II, LLC
...it poses a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.MD. Fisc. Note, 2002 Sess. H.B. 329. Lark v. Montgomery Hospice, Inc. , 414 Md. 215, 229, 994 A.2d 968 (2010), is the only reported Maryland appellate opinion about the HCWWPA. There, the Court interpreted HO § 1-502 to m......
-
Murray v. Transcare Maryland, Inc.
...” Montgomery County v. Deibler, 423 Md. 54, 60, 31 A.3d 191 (2011) (internal citations omitted). In Lark v. Montgomery Hospice, Inc., 414 Md. 215, 227–28, 994 A.2d 968 (2010), the Court of Appeals recently stated that: A court's primary goal in interpreting statutory language is to discern ......
-
Doe v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp.
...whether the MHWWPA protects only current employees or the scope of the term "personnel action." See Lark v. Montgomery Hospice, Inc. , 414 Md. 215, 994 A.2d 968, 977 (2010) (holding that the MHWWPA does not extend to "former employees who made no internal reports" before termination, withou......