A fired nurse lost her wrongful termination lawsuit in Montgomery County Circuit Court even though the jury agreed that her complaints about her former employer were valid.

While the plaintiff, Susan Eynon Lark, complained to her Montgomery Hospice supervisors about what could have been the dangerous and illegal distribution of painkillers by the hospice, Lark’s complaints had nothing to do with her firing on April 14, 2007, the jury said.

“Obviously I’m disappointed, but I feel like I got a fair trial,” said Lark, of Silver Spring, following the June 29 decision. “This was really about clearing my name; to be fired without any warning whatsoever was not only a shock to me, but also an indication to the community that I was guilty of some kind of negligence or wrongdoing. … I never hurt anybody; I never did anything illegal.”

Lark who works in an administrative position with Capital Caring hospice claimed her firing violated the Maryland Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act, a law that protects workers from retaliation for reports of wrongdoing.

Lark’s attorney, Lee Boothby, argued that Lark was fired two months after she began complaining about “starter packs” containing prescription painkillers that were sent to hospice patients without a doctor’s order beginning in February 2007.

Lauri E. Cleary, an attorney for Montgomery Hospice, called the jury’s decision a victory for the hospice, and denied that the hospice distributed the packs illegally.

“The jury returned its verdict in 90 minutes, it confirmed that Sue Lark was not terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing,” she said in a statement. “The verdict is consistent with the hospice’s position in that regard. The hospice maintains that Ms. Lark was not truly a whistleblower, but the hospice acknowledges that, in the past, errors were made and immediately corrected before anyone was harmed in any way.”

Ann Mitchell, president and CEO of Montgomery Hospice, who testified during the eight-day trial, also denied wrongdoing on the part of the hospice following the jury’s decision.

“We believe very strongly in all ways in doing the right thing for all our patients and their families,” Mitchell said.

The hospice fired Lark for repeatedly disregarding hospice policy and ignoring warnings from her supervisors not to use certain techniques to administer medication that the hospice considered too invasive and risky, Cleary said.

While some starter packs were sent prematurely to patients, the packages were labeled for emergency use only and advised patients not to use any medication without consulting a doctor, Cleary said in her closing arguments. Nobody took medicine that was not prescribed to them, and the process was never covered up, Boothby said in his closing arguments.

Boothby, while disappointed in the jury’s decision, viewed the decision as a vindication of Lark’s claims.

“They did find that all of her complaints were valid and there was a substantial risk to the public,” he said. “So she was validated in that regard. … She blew the whistle, the whistle was heard and six people ultimately decided that she had been right in doing that.”

Boothby called for Montgomery Hospice to pay Lark a minimum of $57,000 in compensation for her termination in his closing arguments. Lark spent nearly $150,000 in legal costs over four years, she said.

“It was a very expensive way to make a point,” she said.

jarias@gazette.net