WLB Radiology, L.L.C. v. Mercy Health N., L.L.C.
69 N.E.3d 1032
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Dr. Wade L. Banker (through WLB Radiology, LLC and WLB Interventional, LLC) contracted with Mercy Health System—Northern Region (d/b/a Mercy Radiology Group) on August 1, 2011 to provide interventional radiology and limited on-site diagnostic reads; contract term five years but terminable by either party on 90 days’ notice.
- Mercy terminated the agreement without cause on January 7, 2013, declined to use Banker during the 90‑day notice period, and paid him a lump sum calculated as his average salary for the three months prior to termination.
- Banker sued alleging (inter alia) breach of contract (failure to pay for CT reads and overtime and improper 90‑day calculation) and tortious interference with patient and referral‑source relationships; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- In opposition to summary judgment, Banker submitted an affidavit and exhibits; the trial court struck portions of the affidavit and an exhibit as hearsay or inadequately supported and then granted summary judgment for Mercy and MRG.
- On appeal, the Sixth District affirmed: it upheld the evidentiary strikes, found Banker failed to comply with contract documentation/time‑log requirements (precluding additional pay or inclusion of unpaid CT reads/overtime in the 90‑day average), and found insufficient admissible evidence of intent/unjustified acts to support tortious interference claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of portions of Banker’s affidavit and Exhibit #7 | Paragraphs and exhibit identify unpaid CT reads/patients and show lost referrals; admissible as state of mind, lay opinion, recorded recollection, or summary under Evid.R. 1006 | Affidavit lacks personal‑knowledge foundation, fails to attach/source relied documents, and exhibit is hearsay without proper foundation | Court struck paragraphs/exhibit; appellate court affirmed strike as properly excluded (hearsay/insufficient foundation; Evid.R.1006 argument waived) |
| Breach of contract: unpaid CT reads and overtime after March 6, 2012 | Mercy unilaterally stopped paying for diagnostic reads and overtime; refusal breached contract and altered compensation scheme | Contract allows Mercy to schedule/assign work; payment expressly conditioned on timely submission of documentation/time logs (monthly, within 60 days); Banker failed to submit required logs | No breach: Mercy’s March 6 email constituted exercise of scheduling discretion, not an impermissible unilateral contract modification; Banker did not submit required documentation, so no entitlement to additional pay |
| Breach/compensation calculation for 90‑day notice period | Mercy’s 90‑day payout used an artificially low 3‑month average that omitted unpaid CT reads/overtime, so calculation breached contract | No contract term prescribing a specific post‑termination calculation method; defendants used available payroll basis and lacked submitted documentation to include unpaid items | No breach: absence of submitted time logs and no contractual method requiring inclusion of unpaid CT reads/overtime justified defendants’ calculation |
| Tortious interference with patients/referral sources | Mercy/MRG locked Banker out, removed files, and informed staff/referrers he lacked privileges, causing loss of patients/referrals | Banker failed to identify specific contracts/clients lost; evidentiary support is hearsay or shows at most negligent/misunderstanding conduct; no evidence of intentional, unjustified interference | No genuine issue: Banker failed to present admissible evidence of intentional, unjustified interference causing specific lost patient/referral business; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard of appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 61 Ohio App.3d 127 (summary judgment standard explained)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (summary judgment elements)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (party must delineate basis for summary judgment motion)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (adverse party must present specific facts to show genuine issue of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (definition of material fact and summary judgment principles)
- TPI Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Conrad-Eiford, 193 Ohio App.3d 38 (affidavit must show personal knowledge and link to supporting documents for summary judgment opposition)
- A & B‑Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Central Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d 1 (elements of tortious interference)
- Diamond Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Dayton Heidelberg Distrib. Co., Inc., 148 Ohio App.3d 596 (distinguishing interference with contractual vs. prospective business relations)