97 A.3d 1150
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are three OB/GYN doctors and their medical practice, CWH, with ICAs to be attending physicians at St. Joseph's and staff privileges at St. Joseph's and other hospitals.
- Kierce, the OB/GYN department chair, and McDonald, the hospital CEO, allegedly harassed and intimidated plaintiffs, leading to resignations.
- A department policy change made attending physicians responsible for all admitted patients; plaintiffs opposed it and complained to hospital executives.
- Plaintiffs resigned their ICAs on February 25, 2006 and staff privileges on June 8, 2006; plaintiffs sought damages for alleged breach of ICAs and tortious interference.
- Trial yielded a jury verdict totaling $1,269,079, later reduced to $1,269,079 with per-defendant allocation; post-trial rulings denied punitive damages and prejudgment interest.
- Court reversed judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ cross-appeal, holding no viable breach of contract or tort claims against the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kierce and McDonald tortiously interfered with ICAs and staff privileges. | Vosough et al. claim outside-scope conduct to harm contracts. | Actions were within scope of employment and for hospital interests. | Counts dismissed; no outside-scope interference proven. |
| Whether hospital breach of ICAs occurred due to bylaws enforcement failure and policy change. | Hospital breached ICAs by not enforcing bylaws and by policy change. | Hospital had no obligation to preserve implied terms beyond 60 days; policy change not a contractual breach. | No compensable breach; damages limited to 60-day term. |
| Whether damages for loss of future income were recoverable under at-will ICAs. | Plaintiffs entitled to anticipated future profits from indefinite relationship. | ICAs at-will with 60-day termination; no indefinite profits. | Damages capped at 60 days; no recoverable future profits. |
| Whether the trial court erred by allowing/processing dual theories of contract and tort for the same conduct. | Conduct supported both breach of contract and tortious interference. | The same conduct cannot sustain both theories. | Court erred; separate theories could not be sustained for same acts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elec. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (N.J. 1989) (tortious interference requires outside scope or personal gain context)
- Davis v. Devereux Foundation, 209 N.J. 269 (N.J. 2012) (scope of employment factors; acts may be within scope if serving employer)
- Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 99 N.J. 284 (N.J. 1985) (unilateral handbook promises may create implied contract terms; job security context)
- Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 148 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1997) (implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may limit at-will term in some scenarios)
- Gibson v. Kennedy, 23 N.J. 150 (N.J. 1957) (scope of employment test; acts may be within scope if intended to serve employer)