Question

BREACH OF EMPLoY endant that the breached her ut specifically d a job by the for employ- ed a position P2d 928 (Kan. Ct. App. 1 d at the hos- eness provI- e, obligated CONTRACT Citation: Dutta v. St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., 850 7993) Facts 1, 1987, Dr. Dutta, a radiologist, On July working in the radiology department of the h egr of Dr. Krause, the medical direct nable of the hospitals radiology department sonable 5, 1988, the hospital terminated Kraus August ment as medical director On August 8, 1 and the hospital entered into a written contract with a primary term of 90 days. Tha e ause's e aintiff in racticing 10-mile er for a endant, d geo- yment enants tract provided that if a new medical director h been hired by the hospital within the 90-day had not the agreement was to be automatical a Second 90-day period. extended for ndant Following a period of recruitment and int the hospital offered Dr. Tan the position. Tan and the hospital executed a contract making him r any ritten erviews medical director of the radiology department. The contract granted Tan the right "to provide radia tion oncology services on an exclusive basis sub- ect to the exception of allowing Dutta to continue or an her practice of radiation oncology at the hospital. at On April 24, 1989, the hospital notified Dutta that the 90-day contract had expired and that Tan was appointed as the new medical director. The letter provided in part: It is our intent at this time to establish an exclusive contract with Dr. Donald Tan for medical direction and radiation therapy at SFRMC. Your medical staff privileges to prac- tice radiation therapy at SFRMC will not be affected by this action. You will be allowed to maintain your current office space for radia tion oncology activities; however, you sho make alternative arrangements for your billng and collection activities. Jid, at 931)

how would have decided thsi case. what would be the reasoning behavior behind your decision.

Answer 1

Based on the information provided, I would decide the case in the same way that Kansas Court of Appeals delivered the verdict.

The contract states that the new Medical Director will be “mutually acceptable” to Medical Center and Dr. Dutta. While there may be ambiguity in this statement, the general understanding should take prevalence over the alternate.

When a term “mutually acceptable” is stated, it means that both parties must agree to the establishment of a new system. Here, the new system is the appointment of new Medical Director. Also considering that the new system must be “acceptable” means that the new Medical Director must be compatible with how the Center and Dr. Dutta operates. This solidifies the paragraph 4 of the contract.

Dr. Dutta also kept his end of the contract (paragraph 5). He did attempt to reach a business arrangement with Dr. Tan. However, it was Dr. Tan that did not want to continue with the current operational setup. Hence, from the end of Dr. Dutta, he followed the contract terms.

Given the above understanding, I will rule the decision in favor of Dr. Dutta.