Opinion ID: 2353157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Margiotta's Claim

Text: The two regulations that Margiotta cites are similarly vague statements, and he directs this Court to no specific regulations that proscribe the conduct at issue in the allegedly reported incidents. Margiotta relies, in part, on Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc . the originating authority of the wrongful discharge action, 700 S.W.2d 859 (Mo.App.1985). Boyle is inapposite to the facts and regulations present. In that case, an eye glass manufacturing employer instructed one of its at-will employees to never perform tests to ensure the lens would not shatter so that the company could turn around orders faster. Id. at 862. A Food and Drug Administration regulation require[d] all eye glass manufacturers to test all glass lenses for their resistance to breaking or shattering before such lenses may be sold or distributed to the public. Id. The employee consistently complained to her employer, refused to comply with the order, and reported the violation to the FDA and OSHA. She was ultimately terminated. Id. at 863. The employee in Boyle reported a clear violation of a regulation that explicitly forbade the actions of the eyeglass manufacturer. This did not occur in the instant. Margiotta first relies on a federal regulation. The patient has the right to receive care in a safe setting. 42 C.F.R. 482.13(c)(2). The Department of Health and Human Services enacted this regulation pursuant to federal statutory authority. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1302, 1395hh, and 1395rr (2009). This regulation clearly empowers patients to assert their right to safety, and reported cases in other jurisdictions recognize this. [2] The regulation is personal to the patient. No textual part grants protection to employees or requires specific conduct by an employee such as an affirmative duty to report violations. Most importantly, it does not specifically proscribe the three incidents Margiotta reported. This regulation is too vague to support Margiotta's wrongful discharge action. The second regulation Margiotta cites was enacted by Missouri's Department of Health and Senior Services pursuant to statutory authority. Sections 192.006 and 197.080, RSMo. 2000, and 197.154, RSMo. Supp.2005. The regulation states that [e]ach hospital shall develop a mechanism for the identification and abatement of occupant safety hazards in their facilities. Any safety hazard or threat to the general safety of patients, staff or the public shall be corrected. 19 C.S.R. 30-20.108(3). This regulation is not applicable in the present case. The regulation appears in a section titled Fire Safety, General Safety and Operating Features. Id. The other parts of the regulation speak to disaster plans and hospital construction and remodeling. 19 C.S.R. 30-20.108(1)-(4). This regulation clearly deals with building safety, not patient treatment. Margiotta's mere citation to this regulation without a demonstration of how the reported conduct violated it cannot form the basis for a wrongful discharge action. What Margiotta asks this Court to do is to grant him protected status for making complaints about acts or omission he merely believes to be violations of the law or public policy. The public policy exception to the at-will doctrine is not so broad. A legal duty will not be forced upon parties who have agreed to an at-will relationship; nor will an additional duty be forced upon parties who have agreed to a contractual employment relationship absent a sufficiently definite statute, regulation based on statute, constitutional provision, or rule promulgated by a government body that clearly gives notice to the parties of its requirements. The Hospital was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.