Howerton v. Se. Emergency Physicians, Inc. — Sept. 2016 (Summary)

CONTRACT DISPUTE

Howerton v. Se. Emergency Physicians, Inc.
No. 2015–CA–000456–MR (Ky. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2016)

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed a circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a physician staffing company and a hospital.

A physician was contracted by a physician staffing company to work in a hospital’s emergency department.  While under contract, the physician clashed with the hospital administration over his responsibility to care for non-emergent patients who arrived at the emergency department.  The physician believed the emergency room is for emergencies only, and he would refer non-emergent patients to primary care physicians instead of treating them after an initial screening.

After the physician turned away a patient who came to the emergency department with a skin rash, the CEO of the hospital contacted the physician staffing company’s regional manager and made clear that she did not want the physician working at the hospital’s emergency facilities anymore.  The regional manager then called the physician and informed him that he would no longer be scheduled at the facility, but that he could be scheduled at another facility.  The physician was also offered compensation for the 120-day period he would have worked if he was given notice as specified by the contract.  The physician refused the regional manager’s offer for relocation, refused compensation, and was terminated based on the without-cause provision of his employment contract.

The physician did not accept that he was terminated without cause, and he sued the staffing company and the hospital for various contract and tort liabilities.  The circuit court rejected each of the physician’s claims and granted summary judgment for the company and the hospital.  The physician’s breach of contract claim against the staffing company could not survive because his employment contract expressly provided either party with the ability to terminate the agreement without cause, and nothing in the contract required written notice of termination.  The physician’s tortious interference with a contract claim against the hospital could not survive because he could not show that the hospital acted maliciously or engaged in wrongful conduct when it contacted his regional manager to inform him of its dissatisfaction with the physician’s performance and its desire to remove him from the facility.  The hospital did not wrongfully induce the company to terminate the physician, and the physician was offered other employment options.  The hospital’s motivation for requesting that the physician be removed was supported by a legitimate business interest, not solely to spite the physician.  Therefore, the hospital’s interference with the physician’s employment contract was proper.