Brown v. Peterson

Brown v. Peterson

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Alan B. Brown, M.D., J.D.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Robert Peterson, M.D.; and Mark Reichman, M.D.,

Defendants and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20021070-CA

F I L E D

(November 26, 2004)

2004 UT App 439

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Stephen L. Henriod

Attorneys: Alan B. Brown, Salt Lake City, Appellant Pro Se

Harold L. Reiser and George B. Hofmann, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Jackson, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Alan Brown appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim against Robert Peterson for which relief may be granted.

Brown filed a complaint against Peterson and Mark Reichman in July 2002, identifying a cause of action for intentional interference with economic relations. The complaint contained sixteen fact paragraphs providing the factual basis for the claim. Although Reichman and Peterson are apparently members of a limited liability company for the purposes of their medical practices, the complaint was filed against Peterson and Reichman as individuals. The limited liability company was not included as a defendant, nor was a business relationship alleged.

Most of the facts alleged conduct by Reichman, chief of the Neurosurgery Division of LDS Hospital, as interfering with Brown's use of surgical microscopes. According to the complaint, Reichman initially denied Brown's access to the microscopes, pursued restrictions of access with operating room staff and hospital administration, and specifically denied access to Brown on July 2, 2002, when Brown cancelled a scheduled surgery.

Conduct attributed to Peterson was limited to a comment in the surgeon's lounge in September 2001, stating Brown was a "banned surgeon," and joining in an April 2002 letter to hospital administration expressing concerns about the condition of the microscopes, which implied that Brown had caused the microscopes to be in disrepair. One additional allegation vaguely states that "defendants" insisted that Brown not use the microscopes. No other specific conduct is attributed to Peterson.

From October 2001 to July 2, 2002, Brown used the microscopes without difficulty. However, on July 2, Brown was denied access to the microscopes for a surgical procedure. Brown talked with Reichman that day, and Reichman refused access. Brown cancelled the procedure. The cancellation of the surgery, although vaguely stated, is the damage Brown alleges in his complaint, and the apparent measure of his monetary damage request.

By stipulation of the parties, Reichman was dismissed from this action, leaving only Peterson as a defendant. After Reichman's dismissal, the trial court granted Peterson's motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim.

When reviewing whether a trial court properly granted a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, this court "accept[s] the factual allegations in the complaint as true and consider[s] them, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Coroles v. Sabey, 2003 UT App 339,¶2 n.1, 79 P.3d 974. Dismissal under rule 12(b)(6) is warranted "only in cases in which, even if the factual assertions in the complaint were correct, they provide no legal basis for recovery." Mackey v. Cannon, 2000 UT App 36,¶13, 996 P.2d 1081. A plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to meet each of the elements of a claim. See id. The trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss is a question of law reviewed for correctness. See id. at ¶9.

To establish intentional interference with economic relations, a plaintiff must show that a defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's existing or potential economic relations, that the interference was for an improper purpose or done by improper means, and that the interference caused injury to the plaintiff. See St. Benedict's Dev. Co. v. St. Benedict's Hosp., 811 P.2d 194, 200 (Utah 1991). Brown's complaint must allege facts to establish each element with regard to Peterson to state a claim. See Mackey, 2000 UT App 36 at ¶13.

Based on the allegations in the complaint, Brown has failed to plead a cause of action for intentional interference with economic relations against Peterson. In addition to interference and purpose or means elements, Brown must plead facts that show Peterson's interference, if any, caused injury to Brown. He asserts that the cancellation of a surgery on July 2, 2002, is the injury. Brown admits that from October 2001 to July 2, 2002, he had access to and used the microscopes. He alleges that Reichman denied him access to the microscopes on July 2, 2002. Brown alleges no conduct on Peterson's part that day.

Brown's complaint does not establish any causal connection between the conduct attributed to Peterson and the cancellation of the July 2 surgery. Peterson's last action was expressing concern in a letter in April. Moreover, the primary allegation against Peterson, that he called Brown a "banned surgeon," occurred before Brown had approximately nine months of uninterrupted access to the microscopes. Brown's attribution of responsibility to Peterson is conclusory and apparently based on a business relationship not alleged in the complaint. General accusations that amount to conclusions are not sufficient to state a claim. See Heathman v. Hatch, 372 P.2d 990, 991 (Utah 1962). Rather, "basic facts must be set forth with sufficient particularity to show what facts are claimed to constitute [the] charges." Id.

Brown asserts that Reichman's actions should be attributed to Peterson, thus providing the basis for his claim. He provides no support or argument for this proposition, however. Furthermore, the complaint provides no basis for such joint liability. The complaint was filed against Peterson and Reichman as individuals, with no allegations of concerted action, business relationship, or agency status that may lead to Peterson's liability for Reichman's conduct.

Accordingly, the trial court's dismissal of Brown's complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed.

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge