Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)

Citation
Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)
Parent Document
Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1997-09-23

Other Sections in This Document (617)

Full Text

879 chars
However, experts are hired and paid for testifying by plaintiffs, defendants, or their counsel. Testifying in a tort case is not a whistleblowing activity or an activity designed to educate the public regarding public health. If a professional is required to be in court under a subpoena, public policy would dictate that he or she not be fired for speaking the truth, or for refusing to alter truthful testimony regarding his or her involvement while on duty. See Sides, supra (finding wrongful discharge cause of action when *196nurse discharged for refusing to testify falsely or incompletely at medical malpractice trial). However, where the professional is hired to testify against his or her employer, as opposed to another entity, no judicially-created evidentiary requirement on expert testimony creates a clear mandate of public policy in the wrongful discharge context.