Maryland's Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act protects employers against frivolous Whistleblower actions asserted by disgruntled former employees who had never: (1) "afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct" the alleged "substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety,"; and/or (2) followed the employer's "corporate compliance plan specifying who to notify of an alleged violation of a rule, law, or regulation." The protection provided by the Act does not extend to former employees who made no internal reports at any point in time before their employment was terminated.

The plaintiff, Suzanne Lark ("Ms. Lark"), was a registered nurse who formerly worked at Montgomery Hospice before she was fired suddenly. She was fired because her alleged conduct as a nurse deviated from acceptable and safe standards. Ms. Lark had worked for Montgomery Hospice, Inc. for over three year and during her annual evaluation, she was charged with failing to adhere to accepted and safe nursing practices and was immediately terminated.

Prior to her firing, Ms. Lark had made complaints to her supervisor and the medical director that a number of significant and unsafe/unlawful practices, as well as serious mistakes, were occurring at Montgomery Hospice. Mr. Lark also reported that the unsafe practices were occurring with greater frequency. Specifically, she complained via email of a host of practice issues between September of 2006 and April of 2007.

Ms. Lark filed a claim for wrongful termination and Montgomery Hospice, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss. The trial court granted the motion on the ground that because Ms. Lark had not complained to an agency outside the hospice, the Maryland Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act prohibited her claim. She appealed and the issue before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland was whether a former employee was entitled to assert a wrongful discharge action under the Act (1) even if she never reported to an external board "inactivity, policy, or practice of the [former] employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation; "and/or (2) the "unlawful acts" that she threatened to report were errors committed by fellow employees who did not have the authority to establish the former employer's "policy or practice."

The Court found that a healthcare employer has a duty to correct violations that endanger the health and safety of patients to whom that employer owes a duty of care. When such violations are reported to one of its supervisors, a healthcare employer cannot avoid liability under the Act on the ground that the violations it failed or refused to correct were committed by employees who had no authority to establish the employer's policy. The Court ultimately held that (1) the report of unlawful acts to an external board is not a condition precedent to a civil action under the Act, and (2) when a fellow employee's repeated violations of a law, rule, or regulation is reported to a supervisor, the failure or refusal to correct the violation constitutes a prohibited act of the employer. Therefore, the Court vacated the summary judgment entered against Ms. Lark and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion.