Selma Medical Center, Inc. v. Fontenot
Decision Date | 03 August 2001 |
Citation | 824 So.2d 668 |
Parties | SELMA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., d/b/a Columbia Four Rivers Medical Center v. Dr. Wilfred Joseph FONTENOT et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joe A. Joseph and J. Dawn Smith of Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, L.L.P., Birmingham, for appellant.
Kathleen B. Morris of Morris & McDermott, L.L.C., Montgomery, for appellees.
The defendant, Selma Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Columbia Four Rivers Medical Center (the "Hospital") appeals from the trial court's order enjoining the arbitration proceeding it had initiated in a dispute with Dr. Wilfred Joseph Fontenot, Dr. David Christopher Braswell III, and a corporation of which they were shareholders, Selma Anesthesia & Pain Management, P.C. (all three referred to hereinafter as the "Physicians"). The trial court granted the Physicians' motion to stay arbitration proceedings on the ground that the Hospital had not met its burden of demonstrating that the transactions at issue "involve or have any substantial effect on interstate commerce." We reverse and remand.
In 1996, the Hospital, realizing that the Selma community needed at least one more anesthesiologist, contacted Dr. David Braswell III and Dr. Wilfred Joseph Fontenot, who were working in South Carolina, to recruit them to relocate to Selma. At that time, both Dr. Braswell and Dr. Fontenot were completing their anesthesia residencies. Over the course of several months, Dr. Braswell and Dr. Fontenot traveled to Selma to meet with Robert Bigley, the Hospital's chief executive officer, and with other members of the Hospital's staff, to negotiate personal-services contracts calling for the doctors to relocate their medical practices to Alabama.
On October 21, 1996,1 the Hospital entered two separate, but identical, "Recruiting Agreements" (the "Agreements") with Drs. Braswell and Fontenot (each agreement also with Selma Anesthesia & Pain Management, P.C.).2 Under the Agreements, the Physicians would relocate their medical practices from South Carolina and maintain a full-time medical practice in Selma, where they would be the exclusive providers of all anesthesia services performed at the Hospital.
The Agreements provide that the Hospital guaranteed Drs. Braswell and Fontenot $500,000 in gross cash receipts for the one-year period January 6, 1997, through January 5, 1998 (the "Guarantee Period"), but that if the Physicians'"Net Collectible Revenue"3 exceeded $500,000 during that period, they would repay the Hospital the difference. The Agreements provide for binding arbitration, to be conducted in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.4 By their terms, the Agreements were not to be effective or legally binding on the parties until "reviewed and approved in writing by a Senior Vice President or the President of the owner of the Hospital and by the Hospital's Legal Counsel."
The Hospital claimed, but the Physicians disputed, that the Physicians owed the Hospital excess revenue collected during the period January 6, 1997, through January 5, 1998. On April 8, 1999, the Hospital filed a "Demand for Arbitration" with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"), seeking reimbursement of "approximately $325,583.20 plus any applicable interest, fees, and/or costs," advanced under the "Net Collectible Revenue Guarantee" of the Agreement.
The Physicians did not submit their selections of arbitrators from the AAA panel, as is required under the Agreements and by the American Arbitration Association,5 but, instead, sought and received two extensions to the deadlines set by the AAA.6 When the Physicians still failed to submit their selections of arbitrators, the AAA appointed the arbitrators that had been selected by the Hospital.7 The Physicians then refused to participate further in the arbitration, despite the Arbitration Panel's invitation to them to submit evidence supporting their allegations of fraud in the procurement of the Agreements.
The hearing by the Arbitration Panel was scheduled for May 12, 2000, in Birmingham. On May 1, 2000, in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, the Physicians filed a document styled "Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Motion for Stay of Arbitration." At the same time, they moved for a temporary restraining order or for a preliminary injunction. The Physicians alleged that (1) the Agreements are intrastate in nature, and, therefore, do not impact interstate commerce; (2) the arbitration provisions violate Alabama public policy; (3) the Hospital procured the Agreements through fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation and by denying access to counsel; (4) the Agreements were "boilerplate" in nature and not the subject of "arm's-length negotiations"; (5) the issue of arbitration is one initially for the court; and (6) the arbitration proceedings are unfair and unjust and present a conflict of interest on the part of one of the members of the Arbitration Panel.8
In support of their complaint for a declaratory judgment and their motion for a temporary restraining order, the Physicians submitted mirror-image affidavits of Drs. Braswell and Fontenot. Dr. Fontenot's affidavit states, in pertinent part:
The trial court directed the parties to submit evidence, by way of affidavit, addressing the question whether the Agreements were interstate or intrastate in nature. The Hospital filed the affidavit of Robert Bigley, the former chief executive officer of the Hospital, who had been responsible for the negotiations that led up to the execution of the October 21, 1996, recruiting agreements. Mr. Bigley's affidavit stated, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Service Corp. Intern. v. Fulmer
...of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause has been a controversial issue, see, e.g., Selma Medical Center, Inc. v. Fontenot, 824 So.2d 668, 681-87 (Ala.2001) (Moore, C.J., dissenting); Omar N. White, The Endangered Species Act's Precarious Perch: A Constitutional Analysis Under the Comm......
-
Birmingham News Co. v. Horn
...set out in the FAA are procedural rules, and, therefore, under the reasoning of Chief Justice Moore's dissent in Selma Medical Center, Inc. v. Fontenot, 824 So.2d 668 (Ala.2001), should not govern our substantive review in these cases; rather, argue the plaintiffs, only the § 6-6-14 grounds......
-
Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Tellis
...the courts have misinterpreted the FAA as an exercise of Congress' Article I power over interstate commerce. Selma Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Fontenot, 824 So.2d 668, 677–91 (Ala.2001) (Moore, C.J., dissenting).8 Allstar Homes was criticized in the plurality opinion of Perry v. Hyundai Motor Americ......
-
Service Corporation International v. Fulmer, No. 1021503 (Ala. 12/5/2003)
...of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause has been a controversial issue, see, e.g., Selma Medical Center, Inc. v. Fontenot, 824 So. 2d 668, 681-87 (Ala. 2001) (Moore, C.J., dissenting); Omar N. White, The Endangered Species Act's Precarious Perch: A Constitutional Analysis Under the Co......
-
Preventing Waiver of Arguments on Appeal
...an issue that is raised for the first time on appeal.") (quotation marks omitted).5. See, e.g., Selma Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Fontenot, 824 So. 2d 668, 693 (Ala. 2001) (Woodall, J., dissenting) (stating that "the Hospital did not present a flow-of-commerce argument to the trial court"where the m......