One Washington hospital recently learned the importance of having a clear policy dictating when staff members who've recently undergone surgery can return to work.

Shannon Kries is suing her former employer, the Women's Clinic at Deaconess Hospital in Spokane, Wash., after the hospital terminated her due to concerns that her surgical wound posed an infection risk for patients. An appellate court recently sided with Ms. Kries, overturning a summary judgment from the lower courts in favor of the hospital and sending it back for trial.

Two years before landing a job as a medical assistant at the hospital, Ms. Kries underwent surgery to remove excess skin on her stomach after weight loss surgery. The surgery left her with an open wound that healed slowly, but her previous employer (another local hospital) let her work as long as she kept the wound packed and covered as instructed by her doctor, according to court records.

A few months after being hired by the Women's Clinic, Ms. Kries's surgeon recommended surgery on the wound, since it had stopped healing. In July 2010, the clinic granted her time off to have the operation. Ms. Kries's surgeon operated and closed the wound with sutures and staples, and inserted 2 drains into it.

After a few weeks, her surgeon cleared her for work. Despite the clearance, the clinic's management told her that she could only return when the wound was completely healed, citing their infection control policy. Court documents state that the hospital never looked at the wound or took a culture of it. Additionally, records show that even though the hospital had work available that required zero contact with patients -- and Ms. Kries offered to take it despite the pay cut -- the clinic refused.

Over the next several months, Ms. Kries's doctor continued monitoring her wound, treating it for infectious abscesses a handful of times and clearing her for work after treatment each time. However, the hospital continued to forbid her to return to work, and finally in mid-November 2010, they terminated her. By the end of November the wound was completely healed.

Ms. Kries subsequently sued for discrimination. After a lower court sided with the hospital and granted it a summary judgment, an appellate court reversed the decision and sent it back to the lower courts for further action.

The appellate court said one of the biggest factors in its decision was the hospital's unclear policies. Court records show that while the infection control policy of the hospital said no one with an "open or draining" wound could return to work, its "return to work" policy said that those with sutured or closed wounds that were covered can return. Ms. Kries's wound was closed and covered, but had 2 controlled drains.

A medical expert told the court that since an open wound is always draining, the infection control policy was redundant, and argued that Ms. Kries's wound was covered and posed no risk to patients. The court agreed, saying the policy was "ambiguous" and noting that "without cultures evidencing an infection, the clinic should have deferred to the treating surgeon's judgment and experience in releasing a patient to work."

Ms. Kries was unable to be reached for comment. A hospital spokesperson did not immediately return requests for comment.

Kendal Gapinski