Bhogaonker v. Metropolitan Hosp.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1988
• Docket Number: Docket No. 93618
• Citation: 417 N.W.2d 501,164 Mich.App. 563
• Parties: Anant B. BHOGAONKER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee. 164 Mich.App. 563, 417 N.W.2d 501, 4 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. (BNA) 1113
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 501

417 N.W.2d 501

Anant B. BHOGAONKER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 93618.

164 Mich.App. 563, 417 N.W.2d 501,

4 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. (BNA) 1113

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 18, 1987.

Decided Aug. 20, 1987.

Released for Publication Jan. 21, 1988.

Leave to Appeal Denied Jan. 29, 1988.

[164 MICHAPP 564] Hurwitz, Karp, Hirschman & Wallach, P.C. by Martin Hirschman, Dearborn, for plaintiff-appellant.

Kitch, Saurbier, Drutchas, Wagner & Kenney, P.C. by Mark D. Willmarth and James D. Zazakis, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before HOOD, P.J., and WEAVER and WARSHAWSKY ^*, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Dr. Anant B. Bhogaonker, appeals as of right from the orders entered by the trial judge granting defendant's motions for summary disposition and entering a judgment of no cause of action in favor of defendant. We affirm.

This case arises out of the termination of plaintiff's employment as a physician by defendant, Metropolitan Hospital. Plaintiff is a medical doctor licensed to practice in the State of Michigan. In November, 1974, when plaintiff was hired by defendant as a physician, defendant indicated that it would provide him with employment so long as his work was satisfactory. Plaintiff successfully completed the two-year probationary period specified in the medical staff by-laws of defendant hospital. He thereupon received a permanent appointment as of November, 1976, subject to termination only for good cause.

In 1981, plaintiff's employment was terminated by defendant because of a reduction in staff due to budget cuts. The 1981-82 expense budget of the hospital had to be reduced by $4,000,000. There was no factual dispute that plaintiff's employment was terminated because of economic reasons which resulted in staff reduction.

[164 MICHAPP 565] On May 9, 1984, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging that defendant terminated plaintiff's employment without cause and thus violated its contractual obligations. Plaintiff alleged five counts: breach of contract, estoppel, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and, alternatively, that defendant failed to give adequate notice of the termination and failed to pay all benefits due and owing to plaintiff upon termination.

Defendant subsequently filed motions for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), (8) and (10), and, after hearings, the trial court ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and granted defendant's motions. Plaintiff claims that this ruling was in error.

We first note that even if the court's ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction were erroneous, summary disposition would still have been proper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) as there was no dispute as to any material facts and defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff did not and does not contest the economic necessity for the termination of his employment. As we explained in Friske v. Jasinski Builders, Inc., 156 Mich.App. 468, 472, 402 N.W.2d 42 (1986):

"Case law indicates that termination of the employment of an otherwise competent employee due to an economically motivated business closing is not grounds for a wrongful discharge claim. See, e.g., Bouwman v. Chrysler Corp. 114 Mich App 670, 681-682; 319 NW2d 621 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 989 (1983); Sahadi v. Reynolds Chemical, 636 F2d 1116, 1118 (CA 6, 1980); F S Royster Guano Co v Hall, 68 F2d 533, 535 (CA 4, 1934). We find that these cases are analogous to the instant case and support a holding that, as a matter of law, plaintiff's discharge for economic reasons, as...