at will doctrine from bringing action in tort for damages against his employer. McArn, 626 So.2d at 607. UMMC contends that plaintiffs have no viable claim for wrongful (retaliatory) termination under McArn since the activity of which plaintiffs complained to CMS — improper proctoring of the proficiency examination — was not criminal activity. UMMC points out that CLIA provides primarily for civil fines for certain noncompliance, see 42 C.F.R. Ch. IV § 493.1806; criminal sanctions are only available for individuals who intentionally violate CLIA, see id. § 493.1806(e) (“(e) Criminal sa at she believes may be illegal activity will not support a claim, if the activity is not, in fact, illegal. Thus, the burden is on the employee to prove that the activity reported was illegal. Id. at 403 (<HOLDING>); see also Kyle, 430 Fed.Appx. at 250-51
holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act holding that district court did not err when it determined that appellants are precluded from recovering under the mcarn exception because they have failed to come forth with evidence establishing that the act reported itself constituted criminal activity holding that the state must come forth in all criminal prosecutions with evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that venue is properly laid holding that trial court did not err holding trial court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on motion for reinstatement when appellants failed to call to the trial courts attention the need for a hearing