 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mid-Delta Home Health Incorporated v. Mississippi Association For Home Care3/5/2002
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 03/10/1998
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. SWAN YERGER
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - TORTS - OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: SUMMARY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO 2 OF 4 DEFENDANTS
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 03/05/2002
. Mid-Delta Home Health (Mid-Delta) appeals the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Mississippi Association for Home Care (Association). Having determined that summary judgment was properly granted, we affirm.
FACTS
. Mid-Delta was issued a license enabling it to provide home health services in a number of Mississippi counties. The Association filed suit to enjoin Mid-Delta from being licensed other than in six particular counties. Successful in its suit, the Hinds County Chancery Court enjoined Mid-Delta from operating its home health services in counties other than Holmes, Humphreys, Leflore, Sunflower, Yazoo and Tallahatchie counties.
. Subsequently, Mid-Delta Home Health filed a complaint against Tri-County Home Health, Continue Care Home Health, Continue Care Home Health, II, Alexander's Home Health, Sta-Home Home Health and the Mississippi Association for Home Care charging them with tortious interference with business relations. Mid-Delta asserted that the Association and other defendants, after the chancery court ruling, agreed to act in concert to take a series of steps specifically designed to harm Mid-Delta's ability to keep employees and maintain patient referrals and for the purpose of interfering with Mid-Delta's present and prospective business relationships with health care providers, hospitals and patients. Further, Mid-Delta alleged that the Association and other defendants sent letters to health care providers and hospitals in the six counties in which Mid-Delta had authority to provide services discouraging referral of patients to Mid-Delta. Additionally, Mid-Delta asserts that the Defendants mailed to Mid-Delta area offices correspondence detailing the economic losses suffered and to be suffered by Mid-Delta as a result of the chancery court's ruling. According to Mid-Delta, the purpose of these mailings was to persuade Mid-Delta employees to abandon their employment with Mid-Delta. Consequently, Mid-Delta asserts monetary losses and loss of employees due to the interference of the Association and the other defendants.
. Continue Care issued a letter on October 18, 1995, authored by its president, Larry Eifling, describing orders entered by the Hinds County Chancery Court. The Association held a board meeting a week later at which a board member reported on the status of the litigation and there was a discussion about the possibility of sending out a public notice of some type after the chancery court's order was finalized. While Continue Care was a member of the Association, none of its members were present at the October 1995 Association board meeting
. The second mail-out of which Mid-Delta complains was a letter dated January 29, 1996. It was written by Mid-Delta's attorney to the Mississippi Supreme Court describing the financial harm to Mid-Delta if it were required to adhere to the chancellor's judgment. The letter stated:
Although quite serious, the financial burden imposed upon Mid-Delta by the Chancery Court's injunction is not likely to become unbearable for approximately two months. Accordingly, this matter has not yet reached the emergency stage which would require the expedited consideration of a single Justice. Rather, Mid-Delta believes that sufficient time is available for a full panel to gi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|