Justices Reject Appeal of Ruling Denying Arbitration in Medical Partnership Dispute
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will not review a state Superior Court ruling that refused to send a dispute between partners of a medical practice to arbitration.
November 26, 2019 at 02:33 PM
3 minute read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will not review a state Superior Court ruling that refused to send a dispute between partners of a medical practice to arbitration.
In Gardner v. Vascular Access Centers, a three-judge Superior Court panel consisting of Judges Anne Lazarus and Deborah Kunselman and Senior Judge James Colins affirmed a ruling in April from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas denying the defendant's motion to compel arbitration.
On Nov. 12, the Supreme Court denied allocatur in the case.
The suit involves allegations from limited partners of Vascular Access Centers that the defendant practice and its owner and general partner Dr. James McGuckin (the general partners) breached the limited partnership agreement when McGuckin secretly named himself as the CEO of the practice and siphoned off "millions of dollars of VAC's profits without the limited partners' knowledge or approval," according to Kunselman's opinion.
After two years of discovery, the defendants moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in the employment agreement for the CEO position to which McGuckin hired himself. The trial court, however, held that the lack of notice and consent on the part of the other partners meant that they could not be held to the arbitration clause in that agreement.
The defendants then filed the interlocutory appeal. The Superior Court's analysis focused on only one of the general partners' three points, "Does this action fall within the scope of the arbitration provision, because the limited partners seek to submit the employment agreement at trial and argue that Dr. McGuckin breached that agreement?"
The defendants argued that the language of the arbitration clause was broad enough to merit its application. They further claimed that the scope of arbitration in the case was unlimited.
However, Kunselman disagreed.
"Arbitration does not supplant the courts of common pleas as forums of unlimited jurisdiction over every conceivable case or controversy that might arise between the parties," Kunselman said. "An arbitrator has only limited, subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that truly arise out of or relate to the contract that contains the arbitration clause."
Kunselman also said the focus of the general partners' arguments was off-point, noting that the relevant issue in the case was not whether McGuckin breached the CEO employment agreement, but whether he breached his fiduciary duty to the limited partners.
"Whether Dr. McGuckin breached the CEO employment agreement is irrelevant to whether the general partners breached the preexisting, limited partnership agreement or their fiduciary duties. The employment agreement is only evidence that general partners breached the limited-partnership agreement, because the limited partners claim that, by hiring himself as CEO, Dr. McGuckin violated the preexisting contract," Kunselman said. "Whether he discharged his duties under the employment agreement thereafter is irrelevant to whether his self-hiring was unlawful from the start. Here, the general partners claim that the formation of the employment contract itself was a breach of the prior contract. Thus, this dispute arises out of and relates to the parties' prior contract, not their new one."
The general partners' counsel, David Heim of Bochetto & Lentz in Philadelphia, did not respond to a request for comment.
The limited partners' counsel, Richard Coe of Drinker Biddle & Reath in Philadelphia, also did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readPhila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
4 minute readPa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250