WLB Radiology, LLC v. Mercy Health N., LLC — Aug. 2016

BREACH OF CONTRACT

WLB Radiology, LLC v. Mercy Health N., LLC
No. L-16-1015 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2016)

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a defendant health system on claims of breach of contract and tortious interference with contract and business expectations brought by a plaintiff radiologist’s limited liability company.

The health system and radiologist entered into a professional services agreement and after a number of months, the health system terminated the agreement, without cause.  The agreement called for a 90-day notice period, but the health system compensated him based on his average salary for the three months prior to termination instead of allowing the radiologist to provide services during the notice period.  The radiologist filed a lawsuit against the health system, among others, and alleged breach of contract and tortious interference with contract and business expectations, among other things.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the health system, and the radiologist appealed as to the claims of breach of contract and tortious interference with contract and business expectations.

The radiologist argued that the health system breached the agreement when it unilaterally stopped paying him for reading CT scans and for working overtime, and also breached the agreement when it calculated his average salary for the three months prior to termination, since that calculation did not include reading CT scans and working overtime.  However, the court agreed with the health system and found that the agreement clearly stated that he was to read CT scans only as requested by the health system, and that he did not submit the proper documentation required under the agreement.  Therefore, the court held that the health system did not breach the agreement.

As for the interference with patients claim, the radiologist argued that the health system prevented him from providing follow-up care to his patients.  The health system countered that the radiologist never identified any patients with whom he had contracts and that there was no evidence that it intentionally refused access to facilities or patients.  The court agreed with the health system and held that the state did not recognize a claim for negligent interference, so the lack of evidence of intent made summary judgment appropriate.  On the claim of interference with referral services, the court found that the radiologist had not presented admissible evidence that the health system told potential referral sources that he could no longer perform procedures.