Topolewski v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 4/12/2011. (hb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

THEODORE TOPOLEWSKI, D.M.H.

)
)
v.
) NO. 3-10-1220
) JUDGE CAMPBELL
QUORUM HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC, )
et al.
)

MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court is Defendant Coffee Medical Group’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket
No. 24). For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Count VII
claim for procurement of breach of contract against Defendant Coffee Medical Group is
DISMISSED.
Count VII of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 23) alleges that Defendant
Coffee Medical Group (doing business as United Regional Medical Center) induced or procured the
breach of Plaintiff’s employment agreement with the other Defendants, in violation of Tenn. Code
Ann. § 47-50-109. Defendant Coffee Medical Group argues that Count VII should be dismissed
because there was no employment agreement between Plaintiff and the other Defendants. Defendant
contends that Plaintiff was an employee-at-will and, therefore, there was no employment agreement
to breach.
To recover for procurement of a breach of contract, a plaintiff must establish each of the
following seven elements: (1) the existence of a legal contract; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the
existence of the contract; (3) the defendant’s intention to induce or procure a breach of the contract;
(4) that the defendant acted maliciously; (5) a breach of the contract; (6) that the act complained of
was the proximate cause of the breach of the contract; and (7) damages resulting from the breach

of the contract. Wooley v. Madison County, Tennessee, 209 F.Supp. 2d 836, 849 (W.D. Tenn. 2002).
In Tennessee, unless there is a contract of employment for a definite term, a discharged employee
may not recover against an employer for breach of contract because there is no contractual right to
continued employment. Id.
Here, other than serving as an employee at will, Plaintiff had no valid employment contract
with Defendants at the time of his termination. Thus, Plaintiff cannot establish one of the necessary
elements under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-109, the existence of a legal contract. Plaintiff cannot
establish a breach of contract if there is no contract. See Smith v. Harriman Utility Bd., 26 S.W.3d
870, 886 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Forrester v. Stockstill, 869 S.W.2d 328, 330 (Tenn. 1994).
Plaintiff argues that he need only assert that there was a violation or refusal or failure to
perform, not necessarily a breach. Docket No. 30, pp. 4-5. Even if that were true, Plaintiff still must
establish the existence of a legal contract which could have been violated or that Defendant refused
or failed to perform. There being no such contract, Plaintiff’s claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4750-109 fails.
For these reasons, Defendant Coffee Medical Center’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 24)
is GRANTED, and Count VII of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2