Miranda v. Wesley Health Sys., LLC


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-00925-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-CT-00925-SCT ; 2005-CA-00925-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-27-2006
Opinion Author: SOUTHWICK, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - At will employment - Good faith - Public policy
Judge(s) Concurring: LEE, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): CHANDLER, J.
Dissenting Author : KING, C.J., AND MYERS, P.J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-07-2005
Appealed from: Lamar County Circuit Court
Judge: R. I. Prichard, III
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT
Case Number: 2004-005P

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: DAVID MIRANDA, M.D.




RON L. WOODRUFF, JIM WAIDE



 

Appellee: WESLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC, D/B/A WESLEY MEDICAL CENTER THOMAS W. TYNER  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Contract - At will employment - Good faith - Public policy

Summary of the Facts: Dr. David Miranda filed a breach of employment contract action against Wesley Medical Center. The court granted summary judgment to Wesley, and Dr. Miranda appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: At will employment Dr. Miranda argues that because his contract was for a one-year term, it was error to find as a matter of law that he was an at-will employee. A contract for a stated term removes employment from the at-will doctrine only if there is an enforceable right for the employee to remain for that length of time. The period of time must be definite legally; it must be a promise and not just a goal. If what the contract gives in one provision for a set term is taken back in another for discharge at the sole discretion of the employer, there is a legally indefinite term of employment. An employee with a fixed term contract may be dismissed at-will only if his contract expressly so provides. Here, Section 3.3 of the contract provides for termination for cause, reserving sole discretion to Wesley for assessing whether there is sufficient cause. The one-year term provided a maximum period for employment. Since there was no limit on the reasons for which Wesley could end Dr. Miranda’s employment at any time, this was an at-will relationship. Issue 2: Good faith Dr. Miranda argues that a fact issue exists as to whether Wesley exercised its rights in good faith. While there are numerous Mississippi contract cases that state that all contracts contain an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, the Supreme Court has never recognized a cause of action based on such a duty arising from an employment at-will relationship. The validity of terminations under at-will contracts are not to be viewed through a good faith lens. Otherwise, the language that an employer may validly fire for a good, bad, or no reason becomes a nullity. Although the contract here has a reference to good faith, that section of the contract is not sufficient to import the concept of good faith throughout the contract and overrule at-will principles. Issue 3: Public policy Dr. Miranda argues that his termination was against public policy because the true reason for his dismissal was his refusal to give narcotics to drug seekers or to over-prescribe antibiotics. There are two public policy prohibitions: at-will employment may not be terminated for reporting or for refusing to participate in illegal activity. The record shows that Dr. Miranda never offered proof that he had been terminated on these grounds.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court