 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sammarco v. Anthem Ins. Cos.11/20/1998
HILDEBRANDT, Judge.
Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from the trial court's judgment in which it dismissed all of their claims pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). We affirm that decision.
First, plaintiffs claim that they have a valid cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs contracted with Anthem to provide medical care to persons insured by Anthem, that Anthem unilaterally and without any reason other than its own profit motive terminated their contracts, and that such termination violates the public policy of Ohio.
As plaintiffs argue, Ohio law permits an employee whose contract of employment is otherwise at will to sue for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The Ohio Supreme Court in Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 228, 551 N.E.2d 981, stated at paragraph two of the syllabus:
"Henceforth, the right of employers to terminate employment at will for `any cause' no longer includes the discharge of an employee where the discharge is in violation of a statute and thereby contravenes public policy."
Subsequent Ohio Supreme Court cases have fleshed out the elements of a public-policy claim and the recommended method of analysis of such a claim.
To date, the public-policy exception as defined in Greeley, Painter, Collins and Kulch has been applied in Ohio only in the traditional employer-employee context as a tort claim for wrongful discharge. Clearly, in this case, plaintiffs make no contention that they were employed by Anthem. The contracts between the parties stated that plaintiffs, as members of Anthem's panel of medical providers, would be paid by Anthem for treatment rendered to certain patients (those whosAnthem insured). These contracts were not the type of at-will employment contracts contemplated by the cases cited above.
However, plaintiffs claim that the termination of the contracts between them and Anthem violates public policy and should therefore not be permitted. Plaintiffs argue, "Because Ohio recognizes a public policy exception to termination at will in contracts of employment, this Court should similarly recognize a public policy exception to Anthem's termination at will provision in its provider agreements with plaintiffs."
Ohio courts have recognized some public-policy limitations on the enforcement of certain contracts. It is a generally accepted rule that contract terms that violate public policy are unenforceable. Also, restrictive covenants that purport to limit a physician's ability to practice medicine in a geographic area are scrutinized more carefully than similar covenants restricting other types of employment. In this context, courts have recognized that the greater scrutiny is mandated by public-policy considerations, since limiting the ability of a physician to practice may affect the public's ability to obtain medical care.
We hold that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The at-will termination clause in the contract, unlike a non-compete clause, in no way prohibits a physician from treating certain patients and places no affirmative restrictions on the physician's ability to practice where and in the manner he wants. The contracts between the parties here are ultimately contracts for payment for authorized treatment. Even though not on Anthem's provider panel, the physician may still treat any patient who wants treatment, even those patients insured by Anthem--although the physician would have to require payment by th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|