Lurie v. Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, P.C.
787 F. Supp. 2d 54
D.D.C.2011Background
- Dr. Kevin Lurie, a surgeon, worked for Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group from 1988 until his termination in October 2005.
- He criticized the quality of care at WHC and was reassigned to other centers after his presentations to the surgical oversight committee.
- Lurie faced tensions with colleagues and supervisors, including warnings about disruptive behavior and a transfer to multiple DC and Maryland sites.
- In 2003 he was transferred back to a DC hospital; by 2004 he was at Largo, Maryland, with ongoing concerns about safety and staff relations.
- A November 2003 performance improvement plan required him to refrain from blaming others for work-related incidents; he later received warnings for uncooperative conduct.
- Mid-Atlantic fired Lurie in October 2005, alleging disciplinary problems and alleged falsification of time sheets; Lurie contends he was terminated for reporting quality-of-care concerns and due to protected characteristics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lark creates an intervening Maryland public policy change. | Lurie relies on Lark to revive his claim. | Lark does not alter DC choice or MD public policy for this claim. | Rule 59(e) denied; Lark does not salvage the claim. |
| Choice of law for the wrongful discharge claim. | Maryland public policy should apply under Lark. | DC law governs under governmental interests test. | DC law applies; Maryland case is irrelevant. |
| Whether Lark changes Maryland common law on wrongful discharge. | Lark supports a public policy exception. | Lark addresses statutory interpretation, not MD common law. | Lark does not establish a MD common-law basis for the claim. |
| Whether the Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act provides the sole remedy. | Act offers new basis for relief under 1-504(a). | Act provides civil remedies already, so common-law claim remains unavailable. | No basis to treat 1-504(a) as an independently pleaded claim via Rule 59(e). |
Key Cases Cited
- Lark v. Montgomery Hospice, 414 Md. 215 (Md. 2010) (affects public policy interpretation of Maryland health whistleblower statute)
- Makovi v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 316 Md. 603 (Md. 1989) ( Maryland wrongful discharge requires a clear public policy)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Wholey, 139 Md. App. 642 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000) (defines clear mandate of public policy standard)
- White v. N.H. Dep't of Emp't Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1982) (standard for Rule 59(e) reconsideration)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (extraordinary circumstances for Rule 59(e))
- Perkins v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 282 (D.D.C. 1996) (governmental interests analysis for choice of law)