Mulligan v. Rawls

The plaintiff's restraint of trade claim was not recognizable as a separate cause of action in the absence of a conspiracy.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Carol Mulligan and her professional corporation Carol Mulligan, M.D., P.C. collectively “Mulligan” appeal the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Samuel Rawls, Thomas Runyan, Deryl Warner, and Luiz Weksler in her professional employment suit. Mulligan’s claims against Rawls, Runyan, Warner, and Weksler individually were based on the same operative facts as her claims in another action against Alta Anesthesia Associates of Georgia, P.C., of which the four individuals were “members, owners, officers and/or directors.” In Mulligan v. Alta Anesthesia Assocs. of Ga., P.C. , __Ga. App.__ Case No. A02A1992, decided March 19, 2003 hereinafter “Mulligan v. Alta “, we reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Alta on Mulligan’s claim for tortious interference with business relations.1 Because the same questions of material fact remain for jury determination regarding Mulligan’s tortious interference claim against Rawls, Runyan, Warner, and Weksler individually, we reverse here as well. On appeal of a grant of summary judgment, we determine whether the trial court erred in concluding that the moving party demonstrated that no genuine issue of material fact remained and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. “A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp. , 226 Ga. App. 459 1 486 SE2d 684 1997.

The events leading to this litigation are described in detail in Mulligan v. Alta and Alta Anesthesia Assocs. of Georgia v. Gibbons and will not be repeated here. Ga. App. at __; 245 Ga. App. at 80.

Mulligan v. Rawls

The plaintiff's restraint of trade claim was not recognizable as a separate cause of action in the absence of a conspiracy.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report