 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Health Call of Detroit v. Atrium Home & Health Care Services9/8/2005
FOR PUBLICATION
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Sawyer, Murphy, Neff, Jansen, Fitzgerald, and Markey, JJ.
Pursuant to MCR 7.215(J)(3), this special panel was convened to resolve a conflict between this Court's opinion in Environair, Inc v Steelcase, Inc, 190 Mich App 289; 475 NW2d 366 (1991), and the recently issued opinion in Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Services, Inc, 265 Mich App 79; 695 NW2d 337 (2005), vacated with respect to part III pursuant to a judges' poll and special order under MCR 7.215(J)(3) and (5), 265 Mich App 801 (2005). In accordance with MCR 7.215(J)(1), the prior Health Call panel indicated that it was required to follow the precedent of Environair in regard to that panel's holding limiting recovery to nominal damages for tortious interference claims arising from the termination of an at-will contract unrelated to employment. Health Call, supra at 84-85. Were it not for MCR 7.215(J)(1) and the holding in Environair, the Health Call panel would not have limited damages on remand, thereby invoking MCR 7.215(J)(2). Health Call, supra at 80, 86-87. We conclude that a blanket rule limiting recovery to nominal damages as a matter of law in all actions arising out of or related to the termination of at-will contracts is not legally sound as there may exist factual scenarios in which there is a tangible basis upon which future damages may be assessed that is not overly speculative despite the at-will nature of the underlying contract. The case before us today presents such a scenario when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff for purposes of summary disposition. Therefore, we resolve the conflict in favor of the analysis and reasoning in Health Call,and, to the extent that Environair is read as limiting recovery to nominal damages as a matter of law in all cases in which there is a request for damages arising out of or related to the termination of at-will contracts such as involved here and in Environair, it is overruled. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court without limiting, as a matter of law, plaintiff's recovery to nominal damages.
Because the special order vacated only part III of the opinion in Health Call, parts I and II, which address the facts and principles of summary disposition, remain intact. For ease of reference and continuity, we shall incorporate parts I and II into this opinion by way of quotation and then proceed with our own independent analysis in part III.
I.
Plaintiff is a Michigan corporation that provides nursing and medical services for home care. Individual defendants, Katrina Johnson, Dwight Robinson, and Damita Borner, who are licensed practical nurses, entered at-will independent contractor agreements with plaintiff in which they agreed to provide home nursing services to plaintiff 's clients. The defendant nurses' respective contracts contained a non-competition clause, effective for two years following the termination of the independent contractor agreements. As relevant to the instant case, Wendy Williams, the mother of Cierra Harris, an infant, entered into an at-will contract with plaintiff for the provision of twenty-four hour home nursing services to Harris. The defendant nurses provided the contracted services to Harris under the independent contractor agreements between the defendant nurses and plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Atrium Home & Health Care Services, Inc. (Atrium), which was also in the business of providing home nursing care services, contacted defendant Borner and urged her to terminate her contract with plaintiff and persuade defendants Johnson and Robinson to also terminate their contracts with p
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|