Brown v. Rush Univ. Med. Ctr. — Mar. 2016 (Summary)

BREACH OF CONTRACT

Brown v. Rush Univ. Med. Ctr.
No. 1-15-0192 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 18, 2016)

Two physicians brought claims against their former employer, a medical center, a physician’s association, and the former chair of the medical center’s dermatology department.  The physicians alleged breach of contract and quantum meruit claims against the medical center.  Additionally, the physicians claimed intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act against the medical center and the former dermatology chair.

The physicians claimed that when they left and started their own practice their former employer did not share the location or information regarding their new practice to their patients from the medical center.  The trial court accepted the chair’s reasoning that he did not share the information because the practice was not up and running at the time the information was given to him.  Furthermore, he did not share the information immediately after the opening of the new practice because he was not made aware once it had begun operating.  The trial court agreed with the defendants that this was not intentional interference with the plaintiffs’ business.  Following the bench trial, the physicians appealed the rulings by the trial court, including the trial court’s decision to not allow certain evidence to be used in the case, including tax returns and other financial evidence.  Additionally, the physicians wanted to file a third complaint and were denied.  The appellate court affirmed the decision.