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

1,124 chars
Unencumbered expert testimony before the City Council on a matter of public importance, such as tort reform, is of vital importance to our democratic process and informed decision making by our elected officials. Retaliatory discharge for speaking on issues of public health and safety should not be impeded by an employer especially when a professional feels obligated to voice an opinion on matters within his or her expertise and experience and when legislative statutes and a professional code of ethics encourage the professional to inform and educate the public on such matters. A retaliatory firing for testifying as a professional nurse on tort reform is contrary to the polices articulated in D.C.Code § 1-124, the Health Occupations Act and the Nurses Code. These statutes and ethical code create a clear mandate of public policy for informed expert medical testimony before a legislature on matters of public health not subject to influence, intimidation or any other impediment. Therefore, I would recognize an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine based on this clear mandate of public policy.[3] *195 B.