Lambert v. Baptist Memorial Hospital - North Miss., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00043-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00043-COA ; 2010-CT-00043-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-08-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Termination of employment agreement - Defamation - Intentional infliction of emotional distress Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-23-2009 Appealed from: LAFAYETTE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: ANDREW K. HOWORTH Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED FOR DEFENDANTS Case Number: L06-011 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | C. Jake Lambert, Jr., M.D. |
LOUIS H. WATSON JR., ROBERT NICHOLAS NORRIS |
||
| Appellee: | Baptist Memorial Hospital - North Mississippi, Inc. and Baptist Memorial Health Services, Inc. | STEPHAN L. MCDAVID |
|
|
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 - Termination of employment agreement - Defamation - Intentional infliction of emotional distress |
| Summary of the Facts: | C. Jake Lambert Jr., M.D., filed suit against Baptist Memorial Hospital – North Mississippi, Inc. and Baptist Memorial Health Services, Inc. after he was terminated from his position as a heart surgeon. The court granted summary judgment for the Hospital and Baptist Health Services. Dr. Lambert appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Breach of contract The employment agreement unambiguously provides that Baptist Health Systems could terminate the agreement for cause upon the termination or restriction of Dr. Lambert’s staff privileges at the Hospital. There is no dispute that this was the reason for the termination of the agreement. Dr. Lambert does not allege a breach of the terms of the contract; instead, he claims that Baptist Health Systems breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the performance and enforcement of the contract. The Hospital had numerous documented complaints by members of its staff and patients of Dr. Lambert. The Hospital was well aware of Dr. Lambert’s anger issues. Most disturbingly, the staff reported that Dr. Lambert would freeze up in surgery until another member of the surgical staff was able to get him back on task. Based upon his thorough examination of Dr. Lambert and the documented complaints, Dr. Anderson concluded that Dr. Lambert was unfit to practice medicine. The Hospital determined there was a need to protect the Hospital’s patients and suspended Dr. Lambert’s staff privileges. Baptist Health Systems’ actions did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Baptist Health Systems exercised its contractual right to terminate the agreement. The circuit court correctly granted summary judgment as to Dr. Lambert’s breach-of-contract claim. Issue 2: Defamation Dr. Lambert argues that he was defamed when the Hospital reported his suspension to the National Practitioners Data Bank. In order to succeed on a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must prove: a false and defamatory statement concerning plaintiff; unprivileged publication to a third party; fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and either actionability of statement irrespective of special harm or existence of special harm caused by publication. The alleged defamatory statement is that Dr. Lambert was unable to practice medicine safely. This was Dr. Anderson’s conclusion, and Dr. Lambert has not presented evidence to show that the statement was false. Dr. Lambert argues that Dr. Anderson’s report was inconsistent, but he fails to prove the falsehood of the statement at issue. The Hospital had documented several instances when Dr. Lambert’s anger had caused him to freeze up in surgery. He belittled the staff; he was indecisive; and he showed anger to the patients and staff. Dr. Lambert did not refute the reports by the staff. Because Dr. Lambert has failed to provide evidence of a false statement, summary judgment on his claim of defamation was proper. Issue 3: Intentional infliction of emotional distress Dr. Lambert argues that the Hospital and Baptist Health Systems intentionally breached his employment agreement, took away his livelihood, and intentionally presented false information to the data bank stating that he was unfit to practice medicine. Dr. Lambert argues that those actions combined amount to the extreme and outrageous conduct required to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress. Intentional infliction of emotional distress results when the actions of the defendant were wanton and willful and evoked outrage or revulsion. Dr. Lambert claims that the outrageous conduct was the Hospital’s report to the data bank. However, Dr. Lambert provides no evidence that this action was outrageous conduct. On the contrary, the Hospital relied on the professional opinion of Dr. Anderson who, in a detailed report, found that Dr. Lambert’s occupational functioning was seriously impaired. Dr. Lambert has presented no evidence of conduct by the Hospital or Baptist Health Systems that is so outrageous that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
