Aiken v. Business and Industry Health Group, Inc.
Decision Date | 18 May 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 94-2199-JWL.,94-2199-JWL. |
Citation | 886 F. Supp. 1565 |
Parties | John E. AIKEN, Plaintiff, v. The BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY HEALTH GROUP, INC. (now known as Employer Health Services, Inc., a Missouri corporation), Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Roger D. Stanton, Daniel D. Crabtree, Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, Overland Park, KS, for plaintiff.
Nancy M. Landis, Michaela M. Warden, Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne, Overland Park, KS, for defendant.
This action arises out of plaintiff's discharge from his employment with the Business and Industry Health Group (BIHG), an operating division of defendant Employer Health Services, Inc. The plaintiff, John E. Aiken, M.D., contends that the defendant wrongfully discharged him in violation of public policy and, in addition, that his termination amounted to a breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the parties' employment contract. This matter is currently before the court on defendant's motion for summary judgment and on plaintiff's motion for an order permitting the jury to determine the amount of punitive damages. For the reasons set forth fully below, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's motion for an order permitting the jury to determine the amount of punitive damages is denied as moot.
The following facts are uncontroverted or are facts considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff for purposes of this motion. Plaintiff, a medical doctor, was employed by BIHG from September 15, 1985 through January 31, 1994 as an occupational medicine physician.1 Plaintiff worked at a number of defendant's clinics in Kansas until July of 1993 when he was placed on "float status" and was required to rotate through BIHG's clinics in both Kansas and Missouri.
Eugene Welter, M.D., was BIHG's Vice President of Medical Affairs from 1983 through his retirement on August 31, 1994. During his tenure, Dr. Welter was ultimately responsible for the standard of medical care practiced at BIHG's clinics, including procurement of competent physicians, their periodic review, and ultimately a recommendation for termination to the president of BIHG, if their performance was unacceptable to him. Dr. Welter had final responsibility for and review of all medical decisions pertaining to patient care.
From 1991 through his termination, Dr. Welter gave plaintiff several written memoranda regarding his performance. During the twelve-month period prior to his termination, BIHG received more than eight separate complaints regarding plaintiff.
In July of 1993, Peggy Walker, President of BIHG, and Dr. Welter sent plaintiff a memo which stated the following:
On August 26, 1993, Dr. Welter reviewed a chart of a patient seen by plaintiff the day before. The patient did not have a new injury, but was complaining about an injury which had occurred a year earlier. Since the patient had been injured, she had been seen by a number of specialists whose reports were contained in BIHG's file. Those physicians had returned her to work with certain restrictions sometime prior to her visit with plaintiff. Plaintiff, however, had written a permanent restriction, even though this patient had no new injury. Dr. Welter instructed plaintiff to delete the permanent restriction and the medication he prescribed and counseled plaintiff about perceived problems with the approach plaintiff had taken with this particular patient. Plaintiff claims his differences with Dr. Welter over this patient were of medical judgment: he believed the patient was more disabled than Dr. Welter did.
Shortly thereafter, Dr. Welter verbally warned plaintiff that he would be terminated if BIHG continued to receive complaints regarding his performance.
On October 20, 1993, Dr. Welter talked to plaintiff about a complaint that he had received that plaintiff and another physician had left one of defendant's clinics while a patient was waiting to be seen. Plaintiff informed Dr. Welter that he believed that since he was on "float" status, it was the permanent physician's responsibility to stay and care for the patient.
On November 2, 1993, BIHG invoked the ninety-day notice provision in plaintiff's Employment Agreement.2 Dr. Welter informed plaintiff that BIHG was terminating his employment effective January 31, 1994.
Plaintiff testified that he was criticized by BIHG because he refused to violate statutes, regulations and ethical rules having to do with "undue influence" on his judgment. It is his belief that defendant was forcing him to violate state statutes and regulations which indicate that a physician should be able to practice without undue influence on his or her judgment. He also stated that he felt he was being forced to violate that part of the Hippocratic Oath which states that a physician "shall fulfill this Oath to the best of his or her ability and judgment." He testified that he was not given specific criticisms in this regard, but that he was told he "put too many people off work."
Plaintiff admits that he and Dr. Welter had a disagreement, a difference of medical opinion or judgment, regarding eight of twelve school bus drivers that plaintiff had kept off work. The two physicians had discussions about the school bus drivers more than one time. Plaintiff explained to Dr. Welter that he had put these patients off work for good reason, that they were hurt, they were in pain, they were driving a public conveyance and they had a responsibility of the conveyance and all the school children on the bus. Despite the fact that Dr. Welter expressed disagreement with plaintiff, plaintiff did not alter his treatment or diagnoses of these patients.
Other than the above-mentioned discussion, plaintiff did not directly contact Dr. Welter and stand up for or further explain his belief that defendant was exerting undue influence upon him. He stated that he knew if he disagreed with Dr. Welter, there was no recourse, and that Dr. Welter would not change his mind. Plaintiff testified as follows:
I asked him what I could do, you know, for future reference in cases where I was considering putting people off work and he said, "Why John, simply mark up the ability slip with a lot of limitations on it." And he said, "No company will put anybody back to work with all those limitations because they don't have a job for them so they'll let them go home." Well it didn't work that way with some companies.
When asked whether Dr. Welter directed him not to keep people off work, plaintiff stated, "In so many words."
Plaintiff never followed any directions from Dr. Welter or anyone else at BIHG that differed from what he personally believed.
When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Langley v. Adams County, Colorado, 987 F.2d 1473, 1476 (10th Cir.1993). A moving party who bears the burden of proof at trial is entitled to summary judgment only when the evidence indicates that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anthony v. United States, 987 F.2d 670, 672 (10th Cir.1993). If the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it must show "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
Once the movant meets these requirements, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The nonmovant may not merely rest on the pleadings to meet this burden. Id. Genuine factual issues must exist that "can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Id. at 250; Tersiner v. Union Pacific R.R., 740 F.Supp. 1519, 1522-23 (D.Kan.1990). More than a "disfavored procedural shortcut," summary judgment is an important procedure Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327, 106 S.Ct. at 2555.
Plaintiff asserts two claims. First, that defendant terminated him because he refused to violate a clear mandate of public policy as recognized by law and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ali v. Douglas Cable Communications
...to the public health, safety and the general welfare by a coworker or employer ("whistleblowing"). Aiken v. Business and Industry Health Group, Inc., 886 F.Supp. 1565, 1573 (D.Kan. 1995) (citing Dickens, 255 Kan. at 176-77, 872 P.2d 252), aff'd, 81 F.3d 172 (10th Cir. 1996) An employer rare......
-
Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.
...not contain a clear mandate of public policy” that can support a wrongful discharge claim); Aiken v. Bus. & Indus. Health Grp., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 1565, 1571 (D.Kan.1995), aff'd sub nom. Aiken v. Employer Health Servs., Inc., 81 F.3d 172 (10th Cir.1996) (holding that “very general statutory ......
-
Hutchings v. Kuebler
...to the long-standing Kansas rule that an employee can be terminated with or without cause at any time. Aiken v. Business & Indus. Health Group, Inc., 886 F.Supp. 1565, 1573 (D.Kan.1995) (citing Murphy v. City of Topeka, 6 Kan.App.2d 488, 493-96, 630 P.2d 186 (1981); Cain v. Kansas Corp. Com......
-
Allum v. Valley Bank of Nevada
...will for any reason or no reason. Id. 140 Ill.Dec. 423, 549 N.E.2d at 1309 (Reinhard, J. concurring). In Aiken v. Business and Industry Health Group, Inc., 886 F.Supp. 1565 (D.Kan.1995), the court held that a "plaintiff must show he was discharged because he reported to superiors or to publ......
-
Twenty Years After Murphy v. City of Topeka: an Overview of Kansas Retaliatory and Public Policy Wrongful Discharge Law
...752 P.2d at 690. 23. Id. at 897, 752 P.2d at 687-88. 24. 254 Kan. 870, 869 P.2d 696 (1994). 25. Id. at 882-83, 869 P.2d at 704-05. 26. 886 F. Supp. 1565 (D. Kan. 1995) 27. Id. at 1574. 28. See Glover v. NMC Homecare, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1170 (D. Kan. 2000) (granting summary judgment......
-
Ex Parte Interviews With Former Employees After Aiken v. Business and Industry Health Group, Inc. No Longer a Non-contact Sport
...of the defendant on all of plaintiff's claims and plaintiff appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. 886 F.Supp. 1565. Defendant did not cross-appeal on the court's ruling the issue of ex parte contacts. Plaintiff's appeal is pending. [FN3]. 885 F.Supp. at......