Starzynski v

docx

School

California State University, Sacramento *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

Subject

Management

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by movethenet77

Professor Biegler 12/15/23 MGMT 10 - 02 Starzynski v. Capitol Public Radio & Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group Research Project Starzynski v. Capital Public Radio, Inc., 88 Cal. App. 4th 35 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). Issue ● In Starzynski v. Capital Public Radio Inc., did the plaintiff, Charles Starzynski, have an implied contract of employment, providing for termination only for good cause, despite signing an "Employment At Will Contract And Acknowledgement Form?" Rule ● Labor Code section 2922 says the presumption that employment without a specified term is “at will”, allowing termination by either party on notice. Express written agreements indicating “at will” employment override any previous oral agreements. Implied contracts can overcome “at-will” contracts if there is evidence of an implied agreement that employment would continue indefinitely, pending the occurrence of specific events. ● The covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot impose substantive terms beyond those to which the parties agreed. It does not create an independent cause of action but is based on the terms of an express or implied contract. ● Constructive discharge occurs when the employer's conduct effectively forces an employee to resign. It requires the conditions to be so intolerable that any reasonable employee would resign. Analysis Charlie Starzynski had a good relationship with Phill Corema who was his boss and an employee of Capital Public Radio for 9 years. They worked together developing radio stations successfully. Charles Starzynski, while initially was orally assured of secure employment by his supervisor, so long as he worked hard and did his job, signed an "Employment At Will Contract And Acknowledgement Form" explicitly stating his employment was at-will. Phil assured Charlie that he is not “at will” and that he

needs to sign the contract or the Phil would get in trouble with the board. The form emphasized that only the Board of Directors had the authority to change this at-will relationship. Phil Corema was then terminated. Despite oral assurances from his previous supervisor, The new manager had no precluding ties with Charlie, and there was no evidence that these assurances constituted "affirmative action" by the Board of Directors to change the at-will nature of his employment. Conclusion The court concluded that Charles Starzynski's employment was at-will, stating that he signed the written acknowledgment. The court held that the oral affirmation from his supervisor did not change the at-will agreement, as they did not constitute the required "affirmative action" by the Board of Directors. Starzynski failed to display evidence on the breach of implied contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and constructive discharge. The case was knocked out before going to trial. The at-will status of Starzynski's employment ruled out his claims for wrongful discharge. Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group,

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d 2000), CXXXXXX. Issue ● In the case of Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group, Is the termination of Dr. Nosrat Khajavi by Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group, evidently in retaliation for advocating "medically appropriate health care," considered a violation of California Business & Professions Code section 2056? Rule ● California Business & Professions Code section 2053 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 636, citing CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE 2056(b), provides protection to physicians from termination for advocating medically appropriate health care. ● California Business & Professions Code section 2056, subdivision (c) states that discharging a physician or surgeon for advocating "medically appropriate health care" violates public policy. ● The protection under section 2053 is limitless and does not just apply to advocacy against decisions by healthcare payors; it includes any advocacy for medically appropriate health care. ● Liability for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy typically applies only to employers. Analysis Khajavi, a recent graduate of medical school in New Mexico, joined Anesthesia Medical Group, where two individuals, Mathieson and Bains, were hired simultaneously. Both Mathieson and Bains underwent an internship period before being provided written employment contracts for a two-year term, which included attorney fees clauses in them. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group decided to hire an additional anesthesiologist due to the absence of one of their main practitioners. Khajavi was selected for the position with the understanding that he would receive the same contract or one similar to Bains and Mathieson. However, he never received a written contract. During a procedure overseen by Robert del Pero, brother of Richard del Pero, the president of Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group, Khajavi administered anesthesia to a patient. After starting the procedure, Khajavi discovered, upon reading the patient's file, that she had a weak heart condition, posing risks during anesthesia administration. Khajavi then contacted the patient's physician, who informed him that they were unaware of the scheduled surgery. Feeling set up and concerned for the patient's safety, Khajavi believed the surgery should be halted. Robert Del Pero insisted that the most dangerous part of the surgery had already occurred and was nearly

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

complete. Uncomfortable with proceeding, Khajavi chose to leave the surgery. Following the incident, Robert Del Pero complained to his brother Richard about Khajavi's actions during the operation. In a following conversation between Richard and Khajavi, Khajavi expressed concerns about Robert not consulting the physician regarding the patient's irregular heartbeat. Subsequently, Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group did not renew Khajavi's contract, and he was not assigned to any further procedures. Khajavi was terminated after advocating for what he believed was medically appropriate health care. The court interprets section 2053 as providing limitless protection for physicians in advocating for medically appropriate health care, not restricted to disputes with health care payors. Characterizing Dr. Del Pero's reporting of the incident as a "penalty" under section 2056 would have undesirable consequences. The court claimed an interpretation may be misused to retaliate against physicians who express their views on medically appropriate health care. Additionally, Khajavi's separate conspiracy claim against Dr. Del Pero did not go through because Dr. Del Pero, as a nonemployer, cannot commit the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Feather River argued that its honest but mistaken belief in terminating Khajavi's contract should protect it from liability and requested a jury instruction to convey that this belief should insulate them from legal consequences. Lastly, Khajavi's request for attorney fees is denied due to an expressed provision regarding the granting of attorney fees provision in the oral employment contract. Conclusion The court concluded that Khajavi's termination could violate section 2053 if it was in retaliation for advocating medically appropriate health care. However, it was clarified that Dr. Del Pero, who was not Khajavi's employer, could not be held liable for the discharge. The court stated that only an employer can be liable for wrongful discharge, and the alleged penalty. Reporting the incident did not qualify as a penalty under section 2053. Khajavi's conspiracy claim against Dr. Del Pero was dismissed because as a non-employer, Dr. Del Pero lacked the legal capacity to commit wrongful discharge and, therefore lacked the legal regulation to conspire. The court also rejected Feather River's argument that an honest but mistaken belief in terminating Khajavi's contract would protect it from liability. It clarified that while this standard may apply for implied contracts, contracts with specified terms cannot be terminated based on an honest but mistaken belief. The jury determined, however, that Feather River had breached its oral employment agreement with Khajavi and awarded him $26,069.80. Finally, Khajavi's request for attorney fees was denied because there was no direct evidence of an attorney fee provision in his oral employment contract. The court said that contractual rights, including attorney fees, must come from the entered agreement, and absent evidence of mutual consent regarding attorney fees, they cannot be granted.

Extra Credit For the Starzynski v. Capitol Public Radio case, I agree with the defendants and fully agree with the court's ruling on all accounts. Although Starzynski had an implied oral agreement with his previous manager Phil, before Phil was terminated, Starzynski literally signed away his rights to that oral agreement when he signed the “at will” contract. Whether Phil encouraged him to sign it and promised him he would still be ok, is irrelevant. He understood what he was signing and made a crucial mistake. All 3 lawsuits, breach of an implied-in-fact contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and constructive discharge were all ruled fairly in my opinion. For the Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group case I am also inclined to agree with the defendants and the court's ruling on all accounts. I see no issue with this ruling either, however, I think this one is a little more tricky than the Starzynski case. Both Khajavi and Robert should have not administered the anesthesia in the first

place. After they had gone through with it, and it seems neither of them read the patient's file. I sympathize with Khajavi not wanting to have a patient's death on your hands when it could have easily been stopped. However, I think he made a massive mistake walking out on the procedure especially since the most dangerous part was already completed. The patient also understood what she had been getting into on her end. Therefore, I agree with the court's decision on all 4 claims. Earlier Cases An earlier California Appellate or Supreme Court case that each of these cases was based on, would be Foley v. Interactive Data Corp and Camp v. Jeffers, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro for the Starzynski v. Capital Public Radio case . For Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group, I chose Wickline v. State of California and Weinbaum v. Goldfarb, Whitman & Cohen . Council The council for each representing parties for Starzynski v. Capital Public Radio were Biegler Ortiz & Chan, Robert P. Biegler and Jessee S. Ortiz III for Plaintiff and Appellant Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard and Meriam E. Hamilton for Defendant and Respondent. [88 Cal. App. 4th 35] The council for Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group were as follows, Weintraub Genshlea & Sproul, Rosemary Kelley, Sacramento, Charles L. Post, and William S. Jue, for Plaintiff Nosrat Khajavi. Biegler Opper & Ortiz, Robert P. Biegler, Sacramento, and Jesse S. Ortiz, III, for Defendant Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group. Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, David A. Frenznick and Anthony J. DeCristoforo, Sacramento, for Defendant Robert Del Pero. Catherine I. Hanson and Astrid G. Meghrigian, San Francisco, Amicus Curiae for California Medical Association in support of Appellant Khajavi. My favorite Lawyer, in both cases, is Robert P. Biegler because He is my professor and he's a great guy. Compare and Contrast Both cases demonstrate how California courts navigate the intersection of tort and contract principles in business law disputes. While Starzynski deals solely with a tort issue and narrows in on tort principles. Khajavi shows how contract breaches can have tort consequences. Both cases have a breach of implied contract, breach of covenant and good faith, and a constructive discharge.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Sources Cited STARZYNSKI v. CAPITAL PUBLIC RADIO INC (2001) https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1072438.html Justia. (n.d.). STARZYNSKI v. CAPITAL PUBLIC RADIO INC (2001) . Justia. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/88/33.html KHAJAVI v. FEATHER RIVER ANESTHESIA MEDICAL GROUP (2000) https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1402593.html Arnold, M. S. (2000). Employment: Physician Not Protected From Termination For Advocating Medically Appropriate Health Care--Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 26 (4), 481-481+. http://proxy.lib.csus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com %2Fscholarly-journals%2Femployment-physician-not-protected-termination %2Fdocview%2F274728123%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D10358

Starzynski v

Related Documents