Michael Doff v. National Emergency Services of W. Va.
15-1204
| W. Va. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- Michael Doff (physician) contracted with National Emergency Services of West Virginia (contractor) on August 1, 2012 as an independent contractor to provide emergency-room coverage; the one-year contract auto-renewed, allowed scheduling flexibility, and permitted 30-days written termination, but also allowed immediate termination upon notice from a facility’s administrator or licensed physician.
- Doff worked at War Memorial Hospital and other facilities; respondent was not required to schedule him any minimum number of days at any hospital.
- On February 21, 2013, War Memorial’s Site Medical Director Dr. Renie emailed Doff stating War Memorial (and respondent) would not schedule him at War Memorial in the future; Doff was not scheduled for eight shifts he requested for March 2013.
- Doff sued respondent (Nov. 25, 2013) claiming breach of contract for failure to provide 30-days’ notice and violation of West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act for unpaid wages (seeking pay for the eight shifts). Respondent moved for summary judgment.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for respondent and denied Doff’s motion (filed later) to amend the complaint to add War Memorial; Doff appealed and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contract was terminated on Feb. 21, 2013 | Doff: Email and his alleged post-email non-work show respondent effectively terminated the contract | Respondent: Email removed Doff only from War Memorial scheduling; contract allowed work at other facilities and was not terminated | Court: No genuine dispute — contract was not terminated; email concerned only War Memorial scheduling |
| Whether motive/retaliation (EMTALA whistleblowing) precludes summary judgment | Doff: Removal from schedule was retaliatory for EMTALA complaints; motive matters | Respondent: Plaintiff’s claims are breach of contract and wage-act claims that do not require proof of motive | Court: Motive irrelevant to pleaded claims; summary judgment proper |
| Whether summary judgment was premature because discovery was incomplete | Doff: Depositions (including War Memorial witnesses) were pending and summary judgment was precipitous | Respondent: No timely Rule 56(f) request or informal showing that additional discovery would create a genuine issue | Court: Doff failed to seek continuance or meet Powderidge factors; no error in granting summary judgment |
| Whether leave to amend complaint to add War Memorial should have been granted | Doff: New deposition intimated stronger hospital involvement warranting joinder | Respondent: Amendment was untimely and would prejudice schedule | Court: Motion untimely (filed two years after complaint, near trial, while summary judgment pending); denial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (de novo review and summary judgment standards)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (standard for granting summary judgment when no genuine issue of fact exists)
- Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W.Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (nonmoving party cannot rely on unsupported, self-serving assertions to defeat summary judgment)
- Powderidge Unit Owners Ass'n v. Highland Props., Ltd., 196 W.Va. 692, 474 S.E.2d 872 (requirements for informal Rule 56(f) continuance request)
- Harless v. First Nat’l Bank in Fairmont, 162 W.Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (public policy wrongful-discharge precedent discussed)
- Perdue v. S.J. Groves & Sons Co., 152 W.Va. 222, 161 S.E.2d 250 (trial court discretion in granting or refusing leave to amend pleadings)