Miller v. Imaging on Call (Summary)

BREACH OF CONTRACT/GOOD FAITH/NEGLIGENT AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Miller v. Imaging on Call, No. 3:13-cv-00679 (JAM) (D. Conn. Jan. 12, 2015)

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed a lawsuit filed by a plaintiff radiologist against defendant teleradiology company after her privileges were revoked at a hospital at which she provided teleradiology services.

The radiologist entered into a contract as an independent contractor with the teleradiology company to provide services for the hospital. The hospital complained of the radiologist’s performance to the company for a number of years, but not to the radiologist herself. The hospital began a formal investigation regarding the radiologist, but did not tell her that she was under investigation. One week later, the company contacted the radiologist and suggested that she resign her privileges at the hospital, without mentioning that she was under investigation. The radiologist resigned, and the hospital reported her to the National Practitioner Data Bank since she had resigned while under investigation. The radiologist then rescinded her resignation, and the hospital subsequently revoked her privileges. The radiologist filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.

On the breach of contract claim, the court ruled in favor of the company and held that the radiologist did not allege enough facts to plausibly show that there was any violation of her contract with the company, as the contract did not require the company to alert the radiologist about complaints from the hospital. The court also found that because the parties maintained an independent contractor relationship, there was no fiduciary or employment relationship that would have triggered a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of a bad faith violation by the company.

On the general negligence claim, the court ruled in favor of the company by stating that the radiologist did not identify any duty that the company owed to her apart from the duties undertaken under the terms of the contract.

On the negligent representation claim, the court ruled in favor of the company, stating that the radiologist should have known not to reasonably rely on the company’s assurance that her resignation was merely routine and insignificant. Also, the court dismissed the radiologist’s claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress, finding that the radiologist did not make any factual allegations that the company caused stress enough to put her at risk of illness or bodily harm. Finally, the court found no conclusory factual allegations to suggest that the company intentionally caused the radiologist emotional distress, since there was nothing to suggest that any distress was intentionally imposed on the radiologist.