Salaymeh v. St. Vincent Memorial Hosp. Corp., 88-3249.
| Decision Date | 22 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-3249.,88-3249. |
| Citation | 706 F. Supp. 643 |
| Parties | Lt. Col. M.T. SALAYMEH, M.D., Plaintiff, v. ST. VINCENT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois |
Robert M. Owens, Decatur, Ill., for plaintiff.
Gary Mayes, St. Louis, for defendant.
The doctrine of res judicata does not apply.
Neither does the theory of collateral estoppel.
But there is a lack of consideration to support the alleged contract.
The Hospital's motion for summary judgment is allowed.
The facts are not complicated. Plaintiff is a physician and a former member of the Hospital's medical staff. From 1971 through August of 1984, Plaintiff had staff privileges at the hospital as a general surgeon with a subspecialty of thoracic surgery. In April of 1984, the Hospital commissioned InterQual, an independent medical review entity, to evaluate 100 operative procedures conducted during a one year period at the Hospital. The report of InterQual "identified substandard and unacceptable practice related to Dr. Salaymeh's performance...." It concluded that "the community would be better served if Dr. Salaymeh's private privileges to perform major intra-abdominal and gastrointestinal surgical procedures were completely withheld."
The Hospital's administrator provided Plaintiff with a copy of the pertinent part of the InterQual report on August 27, 1984. On August 28, 1984, the Hospital's administrator delivered a letter to Salaymeh which outlined three options (which had been discussed with Plaintiff on the 27th) which Plaintiff could pursue. First, Plaintiff could voluntarily terminate his surgical privileges. Second, he could receive a summary suspension pending a hearing pursuant to the Hospital's by-laws. Finally, Plaintiff could voluntarily refrain from performing surgery at the Hospital pending review of the InterQual report by the Hospital's Medical Staff pursuant to the by-laws. On August 29, 1984, Plaintiff tendered his resignation of his surgical privileges, thereby avoiding by-law procedures.
Upon receiving Plaintiff's resignation on behalf of the Hospital, the administrator sent a letter to Plaintiff accepting the resignation and stated: "In accordance with this withdrawal of all surgical privileges, the hospital agrees that the review of the hospital's surgical practice (InterQual Study) will be maintained by the hospital in a confidential manner and will not be released to anyone except pursuant to a court order." Plaintiff alleges that a contract of confidentiality arose as a result of these two letters (his letter of resignation and Koerner's return letter promising confidentiality).
On November 16, 1984, the Hospital held a public meeting and invited prominent members of the Taylorville community and the press. Plaintiff alleges that certain statements were made at this meeting by agents of the Hospital which breached Plaintiff's contract of confidentiality.
On January 23, 1985, Plaintiff filed suit in Illinois state court (cause No. 85-L-2) against the Hospital, its owners, its attorneys, its executive officer, the president of its board of directors, and InterQual. The original complaint was pled in three counts: (1) conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiff's contractual relationship with the Hospital regarding his surgical privileges (for ease of identification this contractual relationship will be referred to as Plaintiff's employment contract); (2) interference with the employment contract; and (3) defamation arising out of the November public meeting.
On September 3, 1985, the state court dismissed the complaint in its entirety and granted leave to amend. On October 2, 1985, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Counts I, II, and III of the amended complaint stated the same claims as the original complaint. In addition, Plaintiff added Counts IV and V. Count IV was pled as a breach of contract claim against the Hospital alleging breach of the confidentiality contract. Count V was pled as an action against the Hospital's attorneys for interfering with Defendant's confidentiality contract with Plaintiff.
On January 28, 1986, the state court dismissed Counts I, II, and V of the amended complaint with prejudice. Count III (defamation) was dismissed with leave to replead. Count IV (breach of the confidentiality contract) was upheld but certain prayers for relief were stricken. On April 14, 1986, pursuant to the Hospital's motion to reconsider, the state court dismissed Count IV of the amended complaint as failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff was given leave to replead this count, which Plaintiff did.
The Hospital again filed a motion to dismiss Count IV. Before the state court could rule on this motion, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the amended Counts III (defamation) and IV (breach of confidentiality contract) pursuant to Illinois' Code of Civil Procedure section 2-1009. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, ¶ 2-1009. Plaintiff's motion was allowed. He then appealed the dismissals with prejudice of Counts I (conspiracy to interfere with the employment contract), II (interference with the employment contract), and V (interference with the confidentiality contract). By opinion entered May 28, 1987, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Counts I, II, and V. Salaymeh v. InterQual, Inc., 155 Ill. App.3d 1040, 108 Ill.Dec. 578, 508 N.E.2d 1155 (5th Dist.1987).
On April 8, 1987, Plaintiff filed an action against the Hospital and others in the circuit court of Christian County, Illinois (cause No. 87-L-19) alleging defamation (Count III from cause No. 85-L-2). That claim is presently pending. On September 16, 1988, Plaintiff filed the instant action alleging breach of the confidentiality contract (Count IV from cause No. 85-L-2).
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment should be entered "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Unquestionably, in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the evidence is to be taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1609, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Nevertheless, the rule is also well established that the mere existence of some factual dispute will not frustrate an otherwise proper summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Thus, the "preliminary question for the judge is not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it upon whom the onus of proof is imposed." Id. at 251, 106 S.Ct. at 2511 (quoting Improvement Co. v. Munson, 14 Wall. 442, 448, 20 L.Ed. 867 (1872)); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Applying this standard, the Court now turns to the case at bar.
Because the original action was brought in state court, we must apply Illinois res judicata rules to determine whether the instant action is barred. Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1232 (7th Cir.1986); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 86 (1982). The Seventh Circuit stated in Henry:
Adopting the definition of res judicata set out by the Supreme Court in Cromwell v. County of Sac, 4 Otto 351, 94 U.S. 351, 24 L.Ed. 195 (1876), the Illinois courts have consistently held that the bar of res judicata extends not only to questions actually decided, but also to all grounds of recovery and defenses which might have been presented in the prior litigation between the parties.
Henry, 808 F.2d at 1234 (citing Lake v. Tomes, 405 Ill. 295, 300-01, 90 N.E.2d 774 (1950); Leitch v. Hine, 393 Ill. 211, 220, 66 N.E.2d 90 (1946)).
The fact that we must apply Illinois state law, rather than federal law, to this issue is of critical importance. Under the federal rule in this circuit, which follows section 24 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, Plaintiff must pursue all claims "against the Defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose." See Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 789 F.2d 589, 593 (7th Cir.1986); In re Energy Cooperative, Inc., 814 F.2d 1226, 1230 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 294, 98 L.Ed.2d 254 (1987). Under this test we believe Plaintiff's claim would be barred as the instant claim arose from the same "series of transactions" as those pursued in the original state court action.
However, the Illinois courts apply a more narrow formulation of the standard of claim preclusion. The rule in Illinois is stated as follows:
Whether or not a judgment is a bar to a subsequent action under the rule against splitting causes of action depends on whether the entire amount claimed to be due plaintiff arises out of one and the same act or contract, or whether the several parts arise from distinct acts or contracts.
Cheatem v. Cook, 23 Ill.App.3d 862, 867, 320 N.E.2d 520 (1974) (quoting Ernest Freeman & Co. v. Robert G. Regan Co., 332 Ill.App. 637, 645, 76 N.E.2d 514 (1947)). Here, the only claim pressed against the Hospital to final judgment in cause No. 85-L-2 was conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiff's employment contract. The claim pressed in the instant action is breach of the confidentiality contract. Though these claims arose from the same "series of transactions," they obviously did not arise from the same contract. Thus, Illinois rules allow the subsequent action.
Though we are bound to apply it, the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creech v. Addington
...the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24 in dealing with res judicata questions. Salaymeh v. St. Vincent Mem'l Hosp. Corp., 706 F.Supp. 643, 646-47 (C.D.Ill.1989). 24. See, e.g., Sotavento Corp. v. Coastal Pallet Corp., 102 Conn.App. 828, 927 A.2d 351, 357-58 (2007) (decli......
- Peach Tree Corp. v. PEACH TREE NETWORK