Harris v. Gonzalez
| Decision Date | 06 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D99-4197.,4D99-4197. |
| Citation | 789 So.2d 405 |
| Parties | Robert H. HARRIS, The Earth's Harvest, Inc., and Nutrisupplies, Inc., successor in interest to the rights of Robert H. Harris and The Earth's Harvest, Inc., Appellants, v. Nicholas GONZALEZ, M.D., Nutricology, Inc., a foreign corporation, and Stephen A. Levine, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edna L. Caruso of Caruso, Burlington, Bohn & Compiani, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Jack Scarola of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
William R. Bishin, Seattle, WA, and Eric C. Christu of Elk, Bankier, Palmer & Christu, Boca Raton, for Appellee Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D.
Rick Edwards of Rick Edwards, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, for appellees.
Plaintiffs Robert Harris, The Earth's Harvest, Inc. (EHI), and Nutrisupplies, Inc., appeal a summary judgment in favor of Defendants Nutricology, Inc. and Stephen A. Levine on their claims for tortious interference with their contract with Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. They also appeal a partial summary judgment on the fraud count of their third amended complaint. The trial court granted summary judgment on the contract interference claims because it determined that the contract between Harris and Dr. Gonzalez violated Florida law and was void as against public policy. We affirm on all issues raised in this appeal, but specifically address the trial court's finding that the contract violated public policy.
Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D., is a New York physician, who restricts his practice to providing nutritional therapy to patients suffering from degenerative diseases. His therapy requires patients to consume large, daily doses of nutritional supplements. Because the quality and ready availability of these supplements are essential components of Dr. Gonzalez's therapy, he has actively participated in designing, procuring, evaluating, and monitoring the supplements. From 1987 to 1995, Dr. Gonzalez relied on Nutricology, Inc., a California company, to provide his patients with these supplements. The company was operated by Steve A. Levine, who designed and sold the supplements as a wholesaler.
Robert Harris is a New York attorney. From 1989 through November of 1992, he represented Dr. Gonzalez in various matters involving Dr. Gonzalez's unorthodox treatment. In 1992, Harris proposed taking over the retail sale of supplements. Harris and Dr. Gonzalez entered into a contract in New York to custom design various formulas for sale to Dr. Gonzalez's patients. Pursuant to the contract, Harris was to incorporate EHI in Florida, provide the capital for the business's inventory and equipment, and operate the distribution business. Dr. Gonzalez was to act as a consultant to EHI for ten years. In that capacity, Dr. Gonzalez was to formulate products that were needed by his patients; refer his patients to EHI "as an option for their fulfillment of their supply needs and mak[e] referrals to no other source;" meet a few times a year with management; and review assays of products to assure quality control. In return, Dr. Gonzalez was to receive 50 percent of EHI's net profit.
In May 1992 EHI began selling nutritional dietary supplements to customers in and out of Florida in response to telephone and mail orders. As agreed, Dr. Gonzalez referred his patients to EHI. However, six months after entering into the contract with Harris, Dr. Gonzalez terminated the agreement and discharged Harris as his attorney. Dr. Gonzalez claimed that EHI and Harris violated the agreement by improperly filling his patients' orders, abusing the patients, substituting cheaper unproven supplements, and raising prices to unacceptable levels. Dr. Gonzalez then began referring his patients to Nutricology for their nutritional dietary supplements.
The plaintiffs sued Nutricology, and its director and managing agent, Steven A. Levine, for tortious interference, alleging that they contacted Dr. Gonzalez and offered him financial inducements to refer his patients directly to Nutricology and bypass EHI, the "middleman." Harris claimed that, as a result, Dr. Gonzalez breached his contract with EHI.
In response to plaintiffs' tortious interference claims against Levine and Nutricology, the defendants raised an affirmative defense that Harris' contract with Dr. Gonzalez was illegal and void. In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued that the contract between Harris and Dr. Gonzalez was unenforceable in this state. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Levine and Nutricology.
We agree with the trial court's ultimate conclusion that "this contract establishes a commercial relationship that is banned by the law and public policy of the State of Florida." As appellants point out, section 455.654,1 Florida Statutes, which the court found the contract violated, did not become effective until July 1, 1992, after the contract was executed. However, there are other Florida statutes which render this contract violative of public policy when it was executed. Curtis v. State, 748 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(even where trial court's stated reasons are erroneous, appellate court will affirm if the result is correct but for the wrong reason). These statutes express legislative sentiments that the public is best served by physician referrals uninfluenced by financial considerations.
Section 455.201, Florida Statutes (1991) provided:
The statutes that specifically regulate the practice of medicine also provide guidance on this issue. Section 458.331, Florida Statutes (1991),2 enumerates grounds for disciplinary action against a physician. Subsection (1)(i)states:
Paying or receiving any commission, bonus, kickback, or rebate, or engaging in any split-fee arrangement in any form whatsoever with a physician, organization, agency, or person, either directly or indirectly, for patients referred to providers of health care goods and services, including, but not limited to, hospitals, nursing homes, clinical laboratories, ambulatory surgical homes, clinical laboratories, ambulatory surgical centers, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cardegna v. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc.
...violates a provision of the constitution or a statute is void and illegal and will not be enforced in our courts." Harris v. Gonzalez, 789 So.2d 405, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). This Court itself long ago The inherent and inalienable right of every man to enter into contracts or refuse so to c......
-
Dennis v. Kline
...throughout the state to matters of public morals, public health, public safety, public welfare, and the like.’ ” Harris v. Gonzalez, 789 So.2d 405, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting City of Leesburg v. Ware, 113 Fla. 760, 153 So. 87, 89 (1934)). However, given the imprecision of the public p......
-
Bell Care Nurses v. Continental Cas. Co.
...as against public policy, it is highly likely that, for the reasons we have outlined, this is the case. See, e.g., Harris v. Gonzalez, 789 So.2d 405, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), where the court said: The term "public policy" is not easily defined. "In substance, it may be said to be the commun......
-
Neiman v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co.
...169 (5th Cir.1953). Under Florida law, a contract that violates public policy is void and unenforceable. See Harris v. Gonzalez, M.D., 789 So.2d 405, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The rationale of the rule is that the judiciary as an institution will not provide aid to enforce an obligation that......
-
Florida Courts Should Apply New York's Adar Bays Analysis To Determine Usury
...will not be enforced in our courts." Cardegna v. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc., 894 So.2d 860, 864 (Fla. 2005) citing Harris v. Gonzalez, 789 So.2d 405, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 7. Oregrund Ltd. P'ship v. Sheave, 873 So.2d 451, 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (Florida district court reversed the dismissal o......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...the law will leave them where it finds them; relief will be refused in the courts because of public interest. Harris v. Gonzalez , 789 So.2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). LEGAL THEORIES & DEFENSES 18-87 Legal Theories & Defenses §18:240 7. Public’s Interest Is Weak: MGM Constr. Servs. Corp. v. T......