Janette Worley, Arnp v. Providence Physician Services Co.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 30950-9

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; July 23, 2013; Washington; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Janette Worley, an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP), appealed the summary dismissal of her employment termination lawsuit against Providence Physician Services Company. She argued that there were material factual disputes regarding her claims of violation of public policy and breach of promise; however, the court affirmed the dismissal. Worley began her employment on June 30, 2008, and acknowledged receiving the job description and confidentiality agreements that mandated strict confidentiality regarding patient information, with disciplinary actions, including termination, for breaches. Providence provided a Code of Conduct that prohibited the removal of patient data offsite and required confidentiality. Employees were encouraged to report regulatory violations without fear of retaliation, but were warned they would not be protected from the consequences of misconduct. Worley expressed concerns about her ability to handle the complexity of certain patient cases and received verbal and written warnings regarding her performance, including failures in patient care and communication.

On February 11, 2009, a meeting was convened to address Ms. Worley's performance, attended by key personnel including Jennifer Rollins and Stacy Herron. The discussion focused on various performance issues such as documentation, patient communication, training, and staff relationships. On May 26, Dr. Howlett evaluated Ms. Worley, indicating deficiencies in seven performance areas. Subsequently, on June 9, Providence issued a final warning to Ms. Worley due to excessive tardiness, inadequate work performance, and other conduct-related issues. 

Following the warning, Ms. Worley met with COO Kris Fay and Rollins, alleging improper Medicare billing practices and difficulties with interpreting orthopedic X-rays. She claimed she was instructed to provide inaccurate information for billing purposes. Fay reported these allegations to Compliance Specialist Kari Lidbeck. On the same day, Ms. Brown informed Fay that Ms. Worley had removed patient face sheets containing protected health information from the clinic. 

On June 11, Ms. Worley explained that she took the records at Lidbeck's request but admitted to showing them to her boyfriend, an attorney. The next day, Providence terminated her employment for violating policies regarding patient information security and for insubordination. 

Ms. Worley did not report the alleged billing violations to any governmental agency. She subsequently sued Providence for wrongful termination and breach of promise, both claims were dismissed by the trial court, which found she failed to establish necessary legal elements. On reconsideration, the court emphasized her lack of evidence for the breach of promise claim.

The legal analysis centers on whether the trial court erred in dismissing Ms. Worley's wrongful discharge claim, maintaining that summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact. In Washington, employment can generally be terminated at any time by either party without cause.

Termination-at-will employment can be challenged if it violates public policy or relies on a specific promise of employment. Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is a narrow exception, recognized as an intentional tort, requiring careful judicial consideration. This tort consists of four conjunctive elements: (1) existence of a clear public policy; (2) discouraging related conduct would jeopardize that policy; (3) the conduct caused the dismissal; and (4) the employer cannot provide a valid justification for the dismissal. The plaintiff, Ms. Worley, must demonstrate that current laws are inadequate for promoting public policies related to workplace safety, healthcare standards, fraud prevention in billing, and protection against retaliation. The court will assess whether sufficient evidence supports the claim that no adequate alternative means exist for promoting these policies. Specifically, under the Washington Health Care Act (WHCA), Ms. Worley has access to administrative and legal processes for whistleblower complaints, which may provide adequate remedies, potentially undermining her claim of wrongful discharge.

Ms. Worley did not utilize the protections offered under RCW 43.70.075, which allows whistleblowers to file complaints with the Department of Health confidentially if done in good faith. Despite her assertion that the Washington Healthcare Authority (WHCA) lacks an administrative process, it provides sufficient remedies to protect public policies related to whistleblowing. The statute mandates the Department to establish procedures for filing and resolving complaints, akin to the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), which the Supreme Court found adequate in Cudney for promoting workplace safety and protecting reporting employees. Ms. Worley's argument for internal reporting sufficiency does not meet the criteria for a public policy violation, leading to the conclusion that she cannot prove the jeopardy element of her wrongful discharge claim, resulting in her claim's failure. Additionally, in wrongful discharge claims based on breach of promise, the employee must demonstrate a promise of specific treatment, justifiable reliance on that promise, and a breach by the employer. While the trial court recognized that Ms. Worley did not establish the breach element of her claim, it highlighted that Providence's Code of Conduct allowed for reporting violations without penalty, provided the employee was not responsible for misconduct.

Ms. Worley was not discharged for reporting good faith concerns to a compliance officer; rather, she violated confidentiality policies outlined in Providence's Code of Conduct. This Code prohibited staff from removing patient data from the premises unless necessary and in compliance with policies. Ms. Worley was obligated to maintain confidentiality regarding any information obtained while working for Providence, including patient data. The definition of "confidentiality" includes keeping sensitive information private. She also agreed to a Confidentiality and Acceptable Use Agreement, which mandated that any disclosure of confidential information without authorization could lead to disciplinary action, including termination. Regardless of whether the information she took was redacted, it remained confidential and prohibited from being removed from the workplace or shared with unauthorized individuals. The Code of Conduct explicitly states that employees are not shielded from repercussions for misconduct. Consequently, the court concluded that Ms. Worley failed to demonstrate a breach of promise for wrongful discharge, leading to the summary dismissal of her claims, which was affirmed by the court.