Citation
Hills & Dales General Hospital. V. Liberata J., Oxholm-Dababneh, Huron Memorial Hospital, & Huron Medical Center. 2011 Mich. App. LEXIS 2151(2011)
Facts
Hills and Dales General Hospital had signed a contract with the two defendants J. Painting and Oxholm-Dababneh which stated that in case the two Doctors parted ways with the Hospital, they would not practice medicine within a 35-mile radius from the hospital. The two doctors however got employed by Huron Medical Center. The plaintiff also claimed that Huron Medical Center engaged in business in Tuscola County while its Principle place of Business is Huron County. The plaintiff claimed that the three parties breached their covenant not to compete. Another thing is that Huron Medical Center had stock in two clinics in Tuscola County.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Issues
There are a few issues in this case which the court should consider before deciding the case. Did the two doctors violate the contract they signed as a covenant of not competing? The other issue is, did Huron Medical’s involvement in the two clinics in Huron County imply that they were engaging in business there? The other issue is; was Tuscola Circuit Court right in denying the defendant’s motion for change of venue?
Decision
The court decided that the Circuit Court erred in their decision to state that the defendant’s motion of venue change was timely. The court also decided that although Huron Medicals held stock in the two Health facilities in Tuscola County, the medical center conducted no business in Tuscola County. The court also found no evidence that the two physicians conduct business in Tuscola County.
Reason
The Court of Appeals of Michigan reasoned that as per (HN2) MCR 2.221 (A) the motion for change of venue should be filed before or at the time the defendant file the answers. It was evident that the defendant filed the same day they answered the complaint. Thus, the Tuscola Court was wrong in timing it untimely. The court also denied that the two doctors violated their contract as there was no evidence to show that they engaged in business around Tuscola as they even resided in different counties. On the issue of Huron Medical conducting business in Tuscola County, the Court reviewed some previous cases to help them decide the case. The plaintiff was required to provide a true business connection between the two clinics and the defendant. The court argued that Huron medicals neither own nor operate any medical facility in Tuscola, and holding stock does not reflect conducting business; thus the Circuit Court was wrong in finding otherwise.
Analysis of the case problems
The plaintiff, in this case, is Hills and Dales General Hospital, and the defendants are two of its former employee whom the plaintiff claims that they violated their agreement. The third defendant is Huron Medical center whom the plaintiff claims it is violating the covenant of not competing by engaging in business in Tuscola, outside its proximity. The other case before the court of appeals is that the circuit court rendered the motion of venue change untimely. The Court of Appeals decision is right in all the above case problems. The Circuit Court should have listened to the defendant’s motion of change of venue as they filed it at considerable time. Also, Huron Medical center did not own or control any operations in the two health facilities in concern. There I no proof of ownership or evidence that it engaged in any business; thus the court’s judgment was reasonable.
References
Chien, C. V., & Risch, M. (2017). Recalibrating Patent Venue. Md. L. Rev. , 77 , 47.
