Antaki v. Saint Francis Medical Center, 8:17-cv-00146

Dr. George Antaki was a radiologist employed by Grand Island Radiology Associates (GIRA) who worked at Saint Francis Medical Center under an Exclusive Radiology Services Agreement between GIRA and Saint Francis.
The Services Agreement required GIRA physicians to follow Catholic Health Initiatives / Saint Francis Standards of Conduct (including treating staff respectfully) and allowed Saint Francis to notify GIRA and require exclusion of a physician who breached the standards.
Multiple Saint Francis staff and GIRA colleagues complained over several years that Antaki yelled at, belittled, and intimidated technologists and other staff; GIRA required him to complete anger-management training.
After a January 2014 incident in which Antaki allegedly yelled at hospital schedulers, Saint Francis leadership met with GIRA leaders and sent a written McElligott Letter and addendum documenting complaints and asking GIRA to address Antaki’s conduct.
GIRA shareholders met, excluded Antaki from that meeting, and offered him the option to resign rather than be terminated; Antaki resigned in February 2014 and left employment.
Antaki sued Saint Francis for tortious interference with his business relationship; Saint Francis moved for summary judgment, arguing the letter was truthful, made in good faith, and authorized by the contract.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Saint Francis committed unjustified intentional interference by sending the McElligott Letter	Antaki contends the Letter caused his resignation and was false or improper, thus constituting tortious interference	Saint Francis contends the Letter was truthful, made in good faith, and within its contractual rights to report conduct	Court held no unjustified interference: summary judgment for Saint Francis (Letter truthful and justified)
Whether the Letter’s contents were demonstrably false	Antaki argued inconsistencies and different recollections undermine the Letter’s truth	Saint Francis produced contemporaneous staff reports, deposition testimony and examples supporting the Letter	Court held Antaki failed to show the Letter was demonstrably false; differences in recollection insufficient to create fact issue
Whether the communication was privileged/within contractual rights	Antaki asserted procedural irregularities and improper motive required a jury determination	Saint Francis argued it had a contractual right/duty to notify GIRA of conduct and acted in good faith to protect staff and patients	Court held the communication was within the Services Agreement and made in good faith; privilege applies

Garrison v. ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC, 833 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standards)
Briscoe v. County of St. Louis, 690 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment not disfavored)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standards and genuine dispute analysis)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting)
Recio v. Evers, 771 N.W.2d 121 (Neb. 2009) (truthful information and unjustified interference analysis)
Sulu v. Magana, 879 N.W.2d 674 (Neb. 2016) (summary judgment in tortious interference context)
Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb., Inc., 857 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 2015) (elements of tortious interference)
Huff v. Swartz, 606 N.W.2d 461 (Neb. 2000) (privilege for relaying job-performance information)
Wiekhorst Bros. Excavating & Equip. Co. v. Ludewig, 529 N.W.2d 33 (Neb. 1995) (professionals privileged to give owner advice within contractual scope)
Macke v. Pierce, 661 N.W.2d 313 (Neb. 2003) (communications to prevent injury are not improper interference)