Opinion ID: 3184140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Criminal penalties as provided in Section 1-832 of this title.

Text: 22 Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations, §483, vol. 4, Part 483 Requirements for States and Long Term Care Facilities, Sec. 483.65 provides: Infection control. The facility must establish and maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. (a) Infection control program. The facility must establish an infection control program under which it-- (1) Investigates, controls, and prevents infections in the facility; (2) Decides what procedures, such as isolation, should be applied to an individual resident; and (3) Maintains a record of incidents and corrective actions related to infections. (b) Preventing spread of infection. (1) When the infection control program determines that a resident needs isolation to prevent the spread of infection, the facility must isolate the resident. (2) The facility must prohibit employees with a communicable disease or infected skin lesions from direct contact with residents or their food, if direct contact will transmit the disease. (3) The facility must require staff to wash their hands after each direct resident contact for which handwashing is indicated by accepted professional practice. (c) Linens. Personnel must handle, store, process, and transport linens so as to prevent the spread of infection. Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations §482.42 provides: §482.42 Condition of participation: Infection control. The hospital must provide a sanitary environment to avoid sources and transmission of infections and communicable diseases. There must be an active program for the prevention, control, and investigation of infections and communicable diseases. (a) Standard: Organization and policies. A person or persons must be designated as infection control officer or officers to develop and implement policies governing control of infections and communicable diseases. The infection control officer or officers must develop a system for identifying, reporting, investigating, and controlling infections and communicable diseases of patients and personnel. (b) Standard: Responsibilities of chief executive officer, medical staff, and director of nursing services. The chief executive officer, the medical staff, and the director of nursing services must--

23 Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations, §483, vol. 4, (2008), Part 483 Requirements for States and Long Term Care Facilities, Sec. 483.25 provides in pertinent part: . . .(n) Influenza and pneumococcal immunizations-- (1) Influenza. The facility must develop policies and procedures that ensure that-- (i) Before offering the influenza immunization, each resident or the resident's legal representative receives education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the immunization; (ii) Each resident is offered an influenza immunization October 1 through March 31 annually, unless the immunization is medically contraindicated or the resident has already been immunized during this time period; (iii) The resident or the resident's legal representative has the opportunity to refuse immunization; and (iv) The resident's medical record includes documentation that indicates, at a minimum, the following: (A) That the resident or resident's legal representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of influenza immunization; and (B) That the resident either received the influenza immunization or did not receive the influenza immunization due to medical contraindications or refusal. . . . 24 Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations, §483, vol. 4, (2008), Part 483 Requirements for States and Long Term Care Facilities, Sec. 483.75 provides in pertinent part: A facility must be administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. (a) Licensure. A facility must be licensed under applicable State and local law. (b) Compliance with Federal, State, and local laws and professional standards. The facility must operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards and principles that apply to professionals providing services in such a facility. . . . 25 Title 63 O.S. 2011 §1-1102(a), (c) provides in pertinent part: The following acts and the causing thereof within the State of Oklahoma are hereby prohibited:
(c) the receipt in commerce of any food that is adulterated or misbranded, and the delivery or proffered delivery thereof for pay or otherwise. Title 63 O.S. 2011 §1-1109(a)(4) provides: A food shall be deemed to be adulterated: (a) . .(4) if it has been produced, prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been rendered diseased, unwholesome, or injurious to health; . . . 26 Title 63 O.S. 2001 §§1-1102 and 1-1109, see note 25, supra. 27 Oklahoma Department of Health Regulations §310: 675-17-1, see note 19, supra. See also, 63 O.S. 2011 §1-836, see note 17, supra; 42 Code of Federal Regulations, §70.1(a-d), vol. 4, see note 9, supra; 63 O.S. 2011 §1-1925 see note 10, supra; 63 O.S. 2011 §1-821 see note 10, supra; 42 C1ode of Federal Regulations, §483.65, see note 22, supra; 45 Code of Federal Regulations §482.42, see note 22, supra; 42 Code of Federal Regulations §483.25, see note 23, supra. 28 Moore's job description was provided by the Nursing Center and it is found in the record at tab 33 attached as exhibit #2 to the Nursing Center's motion for summary judgment and brief. A charge nurse's duties state: Duties Responsibilities. . . Report all discrepancies noted concerning physicians orders, diet change, charting errors, etc, to the Director. . . Nursing:. . . Check foods brought into facility and make sure they are appropriate/according to order and allowances. Reports any problems to the DON and Dietary Supervisor. . . Assist in infection control to ensure that tasks in which there is a potential exposure to blood/bodily fluids are properly identified. . . . Winchester, J., with whom Taylor, J., joins, dissenting: ¶1 I respectfully dissent. ¶2 This employer did not require the employee to work his schedule nor remain at work and do other duties not associated with direct patient care. While I understand the summary judgment aspect, the majority nevertheless acknowledged that the termination of this employee was likely the result of actual misconduct. The majority opinion clearly impacts and restricts employment-at-will. I do not take issue with a health department rule that protects patient exposure. But, the employer should be given the flexibility to evaluate his employee's absence from work and also the flexibility to determine whether alternative duties are appropriate and consistent with the employment contract. The practical impact of this Court's holding is to expand the public policy exception to employment-at-will, which will now be governed by administrative rules and regulations. After this case becomes law, an employer must consult those rules and regulations before exercising the decision to terminate an employee. ¶3 The rule of stare decisis does not support the majority opinion. My reading of the opinion is that public policy is now also found in Oklahoma and Federal regulations. 1 The majority opinion cites the at-will employment rule as established by stare decisis. In ¶ 18 of that opinion the Court quotes: 1) the plaintiff must identify an Oklahoma public policy goal that is clear and compelling and is articulated in existing Oklahoma constitutional, statutory or jurisprudential law. . . . The majority opinion in ¶ 20 poses the precise question of law as whether Oklahoma's constitutional, statutory, or decisional law or . . . a federal constitutional provision even prescribes a norm of conduct for Oklahoma that was violated. The opinion then answers overwhelmingly and clearly yes. ¶4 The majority opinion cites Silver v. CPC-Sherwood Manor, Inc. , 2004 OK 1, 84 P.3d 728, and pronounces a result not found in the Silver opinion: In Silver . . . we recognized that a cook for a nursing home who was fired for going to the emergency room with diarrhea and throwing up stated a cause of action by showing a public policy violation of the Oklahoma Administrative Code provisions of the Oklahoma State Department of Health. Majority Opinion, ¶ 21. Emphasis added. ¶5 The majority opinion continues in the same paragraph that the public health codes 'in a clear and compelling fashion' articulate a well-defined, firmly established, state public policy prohibiting the holding, preparing, or delivering of food prepared under the conditions whereby it may have been rendered diseased, unwholesome, or injurious to health. That holding is not found in Silver . ¶6 An examination of that opinion reflects that the Silver majority attempted to continue to restrict public policy to statutes, as opposed to administrative regulations. The Silver Court does not cite Administrative Code provisions as setting public policy. In fact, it specifically disclaims such a position: This Court need not mire itself in the controversy which confronted the Court of Civil Appeals concerning whether certain agency rules promulgated by the Oklahoma Department of Health provide a permissible source of public policy in this matter. Silver , 2004 OK 1, ¶ 6, 84 P.3d at 730. ¶7 The statutes cited in Silver were from title 63, and are now codified at 63 O.S.2011, §§ 1-1102, and 1-1109. The Silver Court held:  Sections 1-1102(a), (c) and 1-1109(a)(4) articulate, in a clear and compelling fashion, a well-defined, firmly established, state public policy prohibiting the holding, preparing, or delivering of food prepared under conditions whereby it may have been rendered diseased, unwholesome, or injurious to health. Silver , 2004 OK 1, ¶ 7, 84 P.3d at 730. ¶8 The new, and previously rejected rule, comes in ¶ 23 of the majority opinion of the case now before this Court: Similar public health codes in a clear and compelling fashion, also articulate a well-defined, firmly established, state public policy prohibiting a nurse from working while infected with the influenza. The Court attempts its support of this new rule by linking article 5, § 39 of Oklahoma's Constitution, which vests legislative power to establish agencies, to the subsequent establishment of agencies. Then when administrative agencies promulgate rules, the majority opinion concludes that because administrative agencies create rules that are binding  similar to  statutes, and because those rules are authorized and approved by the Oklahoma Legislature, then these are somehow equivalent to statutory law. That reasoning is faulty. ¶9 Public policy cannot be delegated to an administrative agency. Section 1 of article IV of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: The powers of the government of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three separate departments: The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; and except as provided in this Constitution, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments of government shall be separate and distinct, and neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others. ¶10 Section 1 of article V of the Oklahoma Constitution requires that The Legislative authority of the State shall be vested in a Legislature consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives. . . . From these constitutional provisions comes the prohibition against the delegation of legislative power. ¶11 The Court in Democratic Party v. Estep , 1982 OK 106, ¶ 16, n. 23, 652 P.2d 271, 277 n. 23 (1982) observed that this prohibition against the delegation of legislative power rests on the premise that the legislature must not abdicate its responsibility to resolve fundamental policy making by [1] delegating that function to others or [2] by failing to provide adequate directions for the implementation of its declared policy. Declaring that a violation of the Oklahoma Administrative Code provisions of the Oklahoma State Department of Health is a violation of public policy and therefore fits within the exception to at-will employment articulated in Burk v. K-Mart Corp ., 1989 OK 22, ¶ 17, 770 P.2d 24, 28, is not supported by our case law. ¶12 The terminable-at-will employment doctrine allows an employer to discharge an employee for good cause, no cause, or even for a morally wrong cause without being liable for a legal wrong. Reynolds v. Advance Alarms, Inc. , 2009 OK 97, ¶ 5, 232 P.3d 907, 909. The Burk tort does not even protect an employee from the employer's poor business judgment, or corporate foolishness. Shero v. Grand Savings Bank , 2007 OK 24, ¶ 12, 161 P.3d 298, 302. In Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc. 2008 OK 1, ¶ 13, 176 P.3d 1204, 1211, that Court held that even a federal statute by itself cannot serve as an articulation of Oklahoma public policy absent a specific Oklahoma court decision, statute or constitutional provision. ¶13 If administrative rules are added to the list of sources for finding a violation of a clear mandate of public policy, I do not see how a Burk tort can be described as a tightly circumscribed framework. Shero , 2007 OK 24, ¶ 12, 161 P.3d at 303. Including administrative rules within the public policy exception greatly expands the Burk tort, placing a greater burden on employers who must search through those rules to determine whether termination of an employee will be against public policy. This new at-will employment rule forces employers to require that they terminate employees only if an articulable and provable good cause can be shown. The majority's holding continues to erode the right of employers to manage their businesses on a day-to-day basis. ¶14 I would affirm the summary judgment of the trial court.