Virk v. Maple-Gate Anesthesiologists, P.C. (Summary)

ARBITRATION

Virk v. Maple-Gate Anesthesiologists, P.C., No. 14-CV-381S (W.D. N.Y. Jan. 19, 2015)

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York enforced an arbitration clause against an anesthesiologist and his anesthesiologist group, holding that the clause was valid and controlled the parties’ dispute. Plaintiff, an anesthesiologist, was a shareholder and employee of defendant, an anesthesiologist group. The anesthesiologist group terminated the anesthesiologist after he was precautionarily suspended from the primary hospital at which the group practiced. The anesthesiologist sued the hospital and got the precautionary suspension annulled and expunged from his personal file. The anesthesiologist group still upheld the anesthesiologist’s termination. The anesthesiologist brought suit against the group. The group moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the anesthesiologist’s employment agreement. The anesthesiologist argued that the arbitration claim was superseded by a subsequent employment agreement, the dispute was not covered by the arbitration clause, and the arbitration clause conflicted with statutory pre-litigation requirements.

The court held that the anesthesiologist’s arbitration clause was valid and governed his dispute with the anesthesiologist group. The court explained that the arbitration clause was unambiguous and never expressly superseded by a subsequent employment agreement, so it must be enforced. Additionally, the dispute did not fall into any “exclusion from arbitration” explicitly stated within the employment agreement. Furthermore, the employment agreement waived any statutory pre-litigation requirements.