WPC% 2~ ZBVXj\  P6;XPHa1DocumentDocument StyleF *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style*    a3DocumentDocument Style0     2Zpe epa4DocumentDocument Style . a5DocumentDocument Style   a6DocumentDocument Style   a7DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` 2p   Ha8DocumentDocument Style` ` ` a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style 4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style *    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style '    2/  'a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style &    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style &  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . 2 a  w  a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8!"@   a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA#$@` `  ` ` ` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ%&@  ` `  2  K  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS'(@  a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\)*@hh# hhh a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse+,@( hh# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn-.@- ( 2a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw/0@pp2 -ppp X0Í ÍX0Í ÍRoman 12ptRoman Courier 12pt'12#x6X@@#Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft34  (X   3 1, 4 @&D R A F T` APage  _______________________________________________________ 2BMnaZItalic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type'56'#x6NhH##x6NhH#BibliogrphyBibliography78 Doc InitInitialize Document Style9:    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲTech InitInitialize Technical Style;< 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2g t !*"PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper=>   , X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   ӕHome PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser Q?@ X #Xx6X@X@#  EnvelopeEnvelope!AB '3 II    Xp,  p,p, Letter 2Personal stationery with standard margins"bCD#XN\  PXP#   p,  3 1, 4 2V%#$S0[Letter 3Personal stationery with narrow margins#bEF#&R2P &P#     3 1, 4 Letter 1Court stationery$PGH#XZ2P XP# * 3 1, 4 ؃ j\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanX4\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanx6X@@H  9`("Courier NewTTx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTXx6X@X@<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXN\  PXP% [  `*Times New RomanTTX&R2P &P7|A`$ArialTT&XZ2P XP& A`ArialTTX2%%3|j    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ă & &No. 970825ă & Lynda Gail Austin, Petitioner  *v.ă Healthtrust, Inc. - The Hospital Company, Wharton Hospital Corporation d/b/a Gulf Coast Medical Center and Patrick Lilley, Respondents   On Application for Writ of Error to the \ Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texasă  4 Argued on February 3, 1998 ă #4\  PP#E:\Security\970825RAG.O-##j\  P6;XPH#чJustice Gonzalez, joined by Justice Spector, concurring.  I concur in the judgment. However, I cannot join the Courts opinion because its tenor may signal a retreat from the well established policy that recognizes that the employmentatwill doctrine is a judicially created one that this Court is free to amend. Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985). While the Court is correct that in Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co., 795 S.W.2d 723, 72425 (Tex. 1990), we declined to further modify the employmentatwill doctrine by permitting a suit for retaliation for employees who report illegal activities, todays opinion omits the fact that we only declined to do so at this time on these facts. Id. at 725. I write separately to reiterate that when dealing with employment at will, it is still within our realm to craft a narrow exception that protects the interests of responsible, lawabiding employers while holding accountable those whose activities threaten the public interest. Id. at 726   (Doggett, J., concurring). I agree that the facts of Lynda Gail Austins discharge, like in Winters, do not provide the appropriate situation for us to broaden the exceptions to atwill employment. Since Austins firing, the Legislature has enacted a whistleblower statute that provides a remedy to any hospital employee who has been discharged for reporting illegal activity to his or her employer. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.  161.134 (Vernon Supp. 1998). Even though Austin was unable to benefit from this enactment, she was not without a remedy. In fact, as the Court points out, under a statute that went into effect in 1987, Austin, as a registered nurse, was required by law to report another registered nurse that she suspected had exposed or was likely to expose a patient or other person unnecessarily to a risk of harm, or who is or is likely to be impaired by chemical dependency . . . . Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4525a,  1(a) (Vernon Supp. 1998). While the record does not reflect whether Austin reported her suspicions to the Board of Nurse Examiners as required, there is no doubt she would have then had a civil cause of action if she was suspended, terminated, or otherwise disciplined or discriminated against. Id.  11(a).iЍ #A\  PP# At oral argument, a point of contention was whether the antiretaliatory provision of the Professional Nurse Reporting statute was in effect when Austin filed her suit. It was, as  11 was enacted in 1987. Act of June 18, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 570,  2, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 2265, 2268. The only amendment of any kind to  11 was a 1993 change in which 1A was added to a list of sections referenced in  11(c). Act of June 19, 1993, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 840,  2, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3305. i Accordingly, this is not a compelling scenario of injustice that requires us to modify the longstanding employmentatwill doctrine. However, such a compelling situation may present itself in the future, and when it does, it will be incumbent on this Court to once again, as we did in Sabine Pilot, carry its burden and the duty of amending [the doctrine] to reflect social and economic changes. Sabine Pilot, 687 S.W.2d at 735 (Kilgarlin, J., concurring).  ` ` ` hhh________________________ ` ` ` hhhRaul A. Gonzalez ` ` ` hhhJustice OPINION DELIVERED: April 14, 1998