Fardy v. Physicians Health Rehabilitation Services, Inc.
Decision Date | 27 October 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 75A04-8707-CV-232,75A04-8707-CV-232 |
Citation | 529 N.E.2d 879 |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Parties | 28 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1642, 122 Lab.Cas. P 56,945 Paul S. FARDY, Appellant, v. PHYSICIANS HEALTH REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., and Charles J. Frahm, Appellees. |
Gregory S. Reising, Gary, for appellant.
David C. Jensen, John M. McCrum, Eichhorn, Eichhorn & Link, Hammond, for appellees.
Paul S. Fardy, M.D. brought suit against Physicians Health Rehabilitation Services, Inc. and Charles J. Frahm, M.D. personally to recover unpaid wages, unreimbursed expenses, and damages constituting wages which would have accrued over the remainder of his five-year term of employment pursuant to his contract. Physicians Health countersued alleging that Fardy, as director, had breached a fiduciary duty to the corporation by appropriating corporate clients.
The trial judge entered an amended judgment, after a bench trial, in favor of Fardy and against Physicians Health for $34,285.00 ($17,500 as unpaid wages and $16,785 as unreimbursed expenses and unmitigated damages under the employment contract). On the countersuit, Fardy was found to have breached his fiduciary duty, as a director, to Physicians Health. The trial judge gave Physicians Health credit for Fardy's earnings from competing organizations in mitigation of Fardy's damages of wages under the unexpired term of his employment contract.
Fardy appeals alleging the trial court erred in 1) not awarding him treble damages and reasonable attorney's fees for the unpaid wages earned before resignation; 2) not awarding him salary constituting the remainder of the term of his employment contract; and 3) finding Frahm free from personal liability.
We agree that Fardy is entitled to treble damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to statute for unpaid wages earned before his resignation. We reverse and remand to that extent. We affirm in all other respects.
I. Whether Fardy is entitled to treble damages and reasonable attorney fees for unpaid wages pursuant to IND.CODE 22-2-5-1 et. seq.?
II. Whether the court erred in finding Fardy's employment contract damages mitigated?
III. Whether Dr. Frahm is personally liable for the debts of Physicians Health?
Drs. Fardy and Frahm entered into various agreements and formed a corporation, Physicians Health Rehabilitation Services, Inc., in May of 1984. Fardy, an expert in cardiac rehabilitation, agreed to provide professional services for salary and a 50% interest. Frahm agreed to loan Physicians Health $150,000.00 for a 50% interest and control of the board. Whether Frahm agreed to assume personal liability for corporate debts was in dispute.
Physicians Health experienced financial difficulties from the beginning and, despite additional capital injections, liabilities far exceeded assets by October 15, 1985. Physicians Health paid Fardy an amount smaller than he was entitled to throughout 1985, and failed to pay him at all in the months of September and October 1985. Fardy resigned employment with the corporation October 15, 1985. He remained executive director of Physicians Health.
In February of 1985--during his employment with Physicians Health--Fardy became employed as a consultant to another health care organization, Safety Harbor Spa of Florida. He remitted his earnings from Safety Spa to Physicians Health. After his resignation, he continued to work for Safety Spa and acquired additional cardiac rehabilitation consulting contracts. He was earning more from these competing organizations than he would have under his contract with Physicians Health by March of 1986.
Fardy brought this suit seeking the unpaid wages earned plus statutory penalties, unreimbursed expenses, and the balance of his salary under the five year contract.
Fardy asserts that he is entitled to an award three times the wrongfully withheld wages plus reasonable attorney fees pursuant to IND.CODE 22-2-5-1 et seq. The relevant statutes read as follows:
I.C. 22-2-5-1 et seq. is a penal statute which, being in derogation of the common law, must be strictly construed. A close examination makes clear that it is concerned with the time of payment of wages. Its thrust is to create a statutory requirement that wages be paid semi-monthly or bi-weekly if so requested by the employee. The remainder of the statute sets out when an employer need pay wages due after the employee terminates his employment. Thus, the statute is one designed to insure the regularity and frequency of wage payments. Wilson v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (D.C.Ind.1985), 610 F.Supp. 1035.
After reviewing Indiana authority, we have determined that section 1 promulgates three distinct regulations, the violation of any of which will trigger the punitive sanctions of section 2. The three regulations are as follows:
1. Employee's wages must be paid in money; Vansickle v. Ferguson (1889), 122 Ind. 450, 23 N.E. 858;
2. If requested, employers must pay employees semi-monthly or bi-weekly; Standard Liquors v. Narcowich (1951), 121 Ind.App. 600, 99 N.E.2d 268;
3. Employees, upon separation from employment, must be paid the amount due them at their next and usual payday. (unless their whereabouts are unknown); Baesler's Super-Valu v. Indiana Com'r of Labor ex rel. Bender (1986), Ind.App., 500 N.E.2d 243.
The facts of the case at bar appear to be quite similar to those in Baesler's where the employee made a demand for unpaid, accrued vacation benefits upon separation from her employer. We affirmed an award of treble damages plus attorney fees holding a demand for wages was not a requisite of the third regulation.
Id. at 500 N.E.2d 248.
In Baesler's, we noted the penalty provision, I.C. 22-2-5-2, was ambiguous with respect to whether it authorized double or treble damages. We refused to address this question because it had not been properly briefed. We did, however, state we would have had difficulty concluding treble damages were contrary to law observing:
We interpret I.C. 22-2-5-2 (Supp.1988) to authorize a maximum penalty equal to double the unpaid wages to be awarded in addition thereto the unpaid wages amounting to a total award of three times the wages due. 1 If the wages remain unpaid twenty days after the usual payday, treble damages attach. [20 (days) X 10% = 2 (penalty) ] [2 (penalty) in addition to 1 (wages due) = 3 (treble damages) ]
In the case at bar, the judge found the statute had not been violated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Atchley v. Heritage Cable Vision Associates
...of payment of wages and is designed to insure the regularity and frequency of wage payments. Fardy v. Physicians Health Rehabilitation Services, Inc., 529 N.E.2d 879, 881 (Ind.Ct.App.1988). The statute is a penal one which, because it is in derogation of common law, must be strictly constru......
-
Herremans v. Carrera Designs, Inc.
... ... to see): (1) $2,500 in statutory double damages (see Fardy v. Physicians Health Rehabilitation Services, Inc., 529 ... ...
-
Birch v. Kim
... ... See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 ... amount of wages under Ind.Code 22-2-5-1); Fardy v. Physicians Health Rehabilitation Services, ... ...
-
Stampco Const. Co., Inc. v. Guffey
... ... Fardy v. Physicians Health Rehab. Serv. (1988), Ind.App., 529 ... 504 and 503(a) of Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 794 and 793(a), did not ... ...