Opinion ID: 6800285
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First TB Disclosure 39

Text: We agree that the first youth’s reported history of coughing up blood, when coupled with the eventual “positive” PPD reading, prima facie supports the objective reasonableness of appellant’s concern that the youth should have been isolated from others living in the group facilities at the DYRS community. But the evidence supporting these two factors, in the context of other record evidence, leaves questions for the jury, not for this court to resolve as a matter of law. In the first place, Dr. Bellard provided uncontradicted testimony that tuberculosis is “extremely rare, especially in otherwise healthy young people” – indeed, DYRS had never experienced an active case – and in any event coughing up blood is not determinative. As noted earlier, Dr. Bellard observed: “More often than not, particularly in this age range, a report of coughing up blood could range 39 For purposes of this opinion, we treat and refer to appellant’s purported disclosures regarding the first youth to her multiple supervisors as one disclosure. 26 from a post-nasal sinus drip, a kid who had bronchitis, because a lot of our kids are heavy smokers.” 40 Nurse Jackson confirmed this in her testimony. 41 Second, not all tuberculosis is active; some can be latent. Indeed, according to Dr. Bellard (as noted earlier), active TB is very rare – manifested by a “sick” look, a cough, night sweats, and a fever – whereas the latent variety has no physical manifestations, is not contagious, and thus poses no danger to others. There was no testimony that, aside from coughing blood, the first youth evidenced any physical manifestation of active TB. Moreover, according to Dr. Bellard, the supervisory nurse on duty had informed him that the first youth “seemed fine” and that “[h]e hadn’t had any recent weight loss, currently did not have any fevers. In fact, on the physical exam he sounded excellent and [had] all of the indicators that the kid was normal and noncontagious.” 42 40 Appellant dismisses as irrelevant the evidence that DYRS has no record that a resident with active TB was ever admitted to the YSC facility, and that neither of the two youths was ultimately shown to have contracted TB. She argues irrelevancy because she was not aware of this information at the time she made the disclosures. Appellant further contends the District’s evidence that TB is a rare disease and that the symptoms exhibited by the youths could indicate a different disease does not detract from the objective reasonableness of her belief. 41 See supra Part I.A. 42 According to Dr. Bellard, if an active TB patient were to enter the courtroom, “it would be pretty evident something’s wrong with them” whereas a (continued…) 27 Third, in determining whether a whistleblower-employee has the required “sincere and objectively reasonable” belief that a “substantial and specific danger to public health and safety” 43 is afoot, the jury must find that the employee held that belief “at the time the whistle [was] blown.” 44 Accordingly, in order to find a “protected” 45 WPA disclosure here, the jury had to find that appellant knew “around [December] 25th” that the first youth had a “15 millimeter” PPD reading – based on “standard documentation with his results” 46 – and that she imparted this knowledge to Nurse Jackson. Yet, the undisputed testimony at trial was that a minimum of 48 hours is required from the time of the placement of the PPD to (…continued) person with latent tuberculosis would appear “perfectly fine.” Having the burden of proof, appellant did not present any evidence contradicting Dr. Bellard’s testimony that a person with active tuberculosis would necessarily appear unwell. And appellant herself confirmed that apart from conducting the intake interview and “maybe” applying (but not evaluating) the youth’s PPD skin test, she did not perform any further medical assessment of the youth. 43