McDonald v. Canton Med. Edn. Found., Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as McDonald v. Canton Med. Edn. Found., Inc., 2013-Ohio-3659.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PAUL MC DONALD, M.D.
Plaintiff-Appellant
-vs-
CANTON MEDICAL EDUCATION
FOUNDATION, INC.
Defendant-Appellee
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Case No. 2012CA00240
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:
Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, 2012CV00513
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:
August 12, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant:
For Defendant-Appellee:
STEPHEN P. GRIFFIN
MICHAEL J. KAHLENBERG
825 S. Main Street
North Canton, OH 44720
RICHARD S. MILLIGAN
PAUL J. PUSATERI
AMANDA L. WALLS
4684 Douglas Circle NW
P.O. Box 35459
Canton, OH 44735-5459
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant Paul McDonald, M.D. appeals the December 10, 2012
judgment entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas granting summary
judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Canton Medical Education Foundation, Inc.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} Plaintiff-Appellant Paul McDonald, M.D. graduated from Chicago Medical
School in 1998. Dr. McDonald completed one year of residency at the Martin Luther
King Medical Center in Los Angeles in 2000. Not satisfied with the residency program
at Martin Luther King Medical Center, Dr. McDonald transferred to the internal medicine
residency program provided by Defendant-Appellee Canton Medical Education
Foundation, Inc. (“CMEF”).
{¶3} On March 26, 2001, Dr. McDonald entered the CMEF residency program
for his second post-graduate year (“PGY2”). A doctor entering the residency program at
CMEF does so under contract for each year the doctor attends the program. The
contract is entitled the “Canton Medical Education Foundation Resident Agreement.”
For Dr. McDonald’s PGY2, the contract term was from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002.
The resident’s general responsibilities under the contract are outlined in the Resident
Physician Manual, attached as Exhibit A to the contract and incorporated by reference.
During the contract period, the resident conducts clinical rotations under the supervision
of the program.
{¶4} On February 27, 2002, Dr. McDonald entered into a Resident Agreement
with CMEF for Dr. McDonald’s third post-graduate year (“PGY3”). The term of the
contract was from July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2003. The contract stated Dr. McDonald
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
3
received an annual stipend in the amount of $42,129.00. Dr. McDonald’s duties under
the contract again included clinical rotations. The contract incorporated the Resident
Physician Manual by reference.
Pertinent to this appeal, the Resident Physician
Manual states as follows:
PROMOTION AND REAPPOINTMENT
Residents are promoted on the basis of acceptable periodic clinical
evaluations, which may be supplemented by other evaluation methods.
In most instances, contractual appointment is equated with academic
promotion. Under some circumstances, a resident may be reappointed to
repeat an academic year.
The decision to reappoint at the same level or promote a resident to the
next level of post-graduate training shall be done annually. The decision
will be made after review of the resident’s performance.
The following factors are used in the decision to promote:
1. All evaluations of the resident’s performance
2. Pass the USMLE [United States Medical Licensing Exam] II to be
promoted to a PGY-2 (excluding Transitional)
3. Pass the USMLE III to complete the residency program
4. Any other criteria deemed appropriate by the Program Director
The Program Director will communicate reappointment and promotional
decisions to the GMERC [Graduate Medical Education and Research
Committee]. All appointments (same and next academic year) are
restricted to a maximum period of 12 months with no implied promise of
extension. Each resident is required to sign a contract, signifying
acceptance of the appointment.
If significant deficiencies in the resident’s performance are identified, a
decision may be made not to promote. As much advance written notice
as possible will be given to this resident. When remediation is decided
upon rather than promotion, the resident’s Residency Program Director,
when appropriate, will arrange a plan, which includes monitoring
performance. The Program Director may choose to extend the existing
contract for the length of time necessary to complete the remediation
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
4
process. The resident may use the grievance procedure to appeal the
decision not to promote.
{¶5} On January 14, 2003, during the term of Dr. McDonald’s PGY3 contract
with CMEF, Dr. McDonald entered into another Resident Agreement with CMEF that
extended the term of the PGY3 contract by six months. The contract term was from
July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003. The annual stipend was $42,972.00.
{¶6} The resident generally takes the USMLE III exam during the third postgraduate year. Upon passage of the USMLE III exam and a certificate of completion of
a residency program, a doctor is eligible to sit for the internal medicine boards. If the
doctor passes the internal medicine boards, the doctor will be an internal medicine
board certified physician.
{¶7} Dr. McDonald took the USMLE III exam on November 25, 2003. He did
not pass the exam.
{¶8} The term of Dr. McDonald’s Resident Agreement was to expire on
December 31, 2003. Dr. McDonald met with Dr. Richard Ziegler, Program Director of
the CMEF residency program to discuss Dr. McDonald’s status with the residency
program. Pursuant to their discussion, Dr. Zeigler sent Dr. McDonald the following letter
on December 30, 2003:
Re: Certificate of Completion of Training, Internal Medicine Residency
Program
Thank you very much for meeting with me today, 12/30/2003, to
discuss your status with the residency program. I am sorry that the news
from USMLE Step 3 [USMLE III] was not favorable. The faculty and staff
of the residency program are pulling for you as you work and study to get
by this next hurdle.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
5
As we discussed at the meeting, the residency steering
committee/program evaluation committee has decided that you will
receive a certificate of completion of training in internal medicine from the
residency when you pass Step 3. The committee also decided that you
have one year (until 12/31/04) to pass Step 3. If you do not pass Step 3
by 12/31/04, the residency program will not be able to grant you a
certificate of completion of training and you will probably have to repeat at
least a part of your residency training program. As you know, a passing
grade on Step 3 is a requirement for completion of all Canton residency
programs.
{¶9} After December 31, 2003, Dr. McDonald was no longer performing duties,
including clinical rotations, as outlined by the Resident Agreement.
{¶10} Dr. McDonald took the USMLE III exam on June 3, 2004. He did not pass
the exam.
{¶11} Dr. John McGreevey, Jr., the current Program Director of the CMEF
Residency Program sent the following letter to Dr. McDonald on June 29, 2004:
I hope this letter finds you well and enjoying the summer. I am writing as
a reminder for you to inform us once you have passed your USMLE Step
III exam so that we can release your diploma and plaque. Per the
Steering Committee decision, if you do not pass USMLE Step III by
December 31, 2004, we will be unable to grant you a certificate of
completion of training and you will likely need to repeat at least a portion
of your residency training.
{¶12} On November 24, 2004, Dr. McGreevey sent Dr. McDonald the following
letter:
As we discussed last week, I am allowing you to extend the deadline for
taking your Step 3 exam into January 2005 because of the current
scheduling problems. However, this does not in anyway change any of
the other aspects of the letters you have received from the program
regarding Step 3.
Please let me know as soon as possible the results of your Step 3 exam.
{¶13} Dr. McDonald took the USMLE III exam on January 20, 2005. He did not
pass the exam.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
6
{¶14} On August 26, 2005, Dr. McGreevey sent Dr. McDonald a certified letter
which read:
It has been 20 months since you have completed your final residency
rotation here in CMEF. During this time we have not sent in a report to the
American Board of Internal Medicine on your PGY-3 year, because you
had not passed Step 3 of the USMLE, a requirement for successful
completion. In December 2003 the program informed you that we would
only be able to provide you with a certificate of completion if you were able
to pass Step 3 of the USMLE by December 31, 2004. You were also told
at that time that if you did not pass Step 3 by that time, you would have to
repeat some portion of your training. We later agreed to extend this
deadline into January 2005 at your request. It has been over six months
since the deadline has passed and to our knowledge you still have not
passed Step 3. Added to that, we are concerned because during this time
you have been unable to engage in activities to maintain your clinical
skills.
We are required to report to the American Board of Internal Medicine a
satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating for your PGY-3 year.
An
unsatisfactory rating mandates repeating of the third year of residency.
At this time we have decided to turn in an unsatisfactory rating to the
ABIM on the basis of your inability to pass Step 3 of the USMLE. This
means that you will not be eligible to receive a certificate of completion, or
to take the Internal Medicine Boards, unless you repeat your third year of
residency. We are not able to guarantee the availability of a position here
to do another PGY-3 year.
We will verify the time of training that you have had here and the
circumstances of why you have not received a certificate to anyone upon
your request. However, since you have not completed the requirements
of residency 20 months after finishing your final rotation, we feel this is the
appropriate course.
{¶15} Dr. McDonald took the USMLE III exam on October 18, 2005. He passed
the exam.
{¶16} Dr. McDonald sent CMEF a letter on December 7, 2005 requesting the
Steering Committee to reverse its decision to give an unsatisfactory rating for Dr.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
7
McDonald to the ABIM. Dr. McDonald argued he had successfully completed his PGY3
year and passed the USMLE III exam.
{¶17} On February 24, 2006, CMEF informed Dr. McDonald that CMEF would
not give Dr. McDonald credit for the PGY3 training at CMEF.
{¶18} Dr. McDonald filed a complaint against CMEF with the Stark County
Court of Common Pleas. In his complaint, he alleged breach of written contract, breach
of oral contract, and promissory estoppel. He argued CMEF breached the Resident
Agreement by failing to award Dr. McDonald a certificate of completion and giving him
an unsatisfactory rating even though Dr. McDonald completed his PGY3 and passed
the USMLE III. Dr. McDonald argued the unsatisfactory rating damaged his abilities to
gain entrance into a residency program to retake his third post-graduate year.
Dr.
McDonald is not able to sit for the Internal Medicine Boards to become a board certified
physician in internal medicine. He argued he suffered financial damages by his inability
to practice as a board certified physician.
{¶19} On October 29, 2012, CMEF moved for summary judgment on all counts
of the complaint.
Dr. McDonald responded on November 8, 2012.
Dr. McDonald
dismissed his claims for breach of oral contract and promissory estoppel on November
13, 2012. CMEF replied on November 20, 2012.
{¶20} The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CMEF on December
10, 2012. It is from this decision Dr. McDonald now appeals.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
8
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶21} Dr. McDonald raises one Assignment of Error:
{¶22} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO
APPELLEE WHERE THERE WERE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT IN
DISPUTE.”
ANALYSIS
{¶23} Dr. McDonald argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in
favor of CMEF. We refer to Civ.R. 56(C) in reviewing a motion for summary judgment
which provides, in pertinent part:
Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleading,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits,
transcripts of evidence in the pending case and written stipulations of fact,
if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it
appears from such evidence or stipulation and only from the evidence or
stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and
that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for
summary judgment is made, such party being entitled to have the
evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor.
{¶24} The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court
of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial
court, which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
9
of the nonmoving party's claim. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d
264 (1996). The nonmoving party then has a reciprocal burden of specificity and cannot
rest on the allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must set forth “specific facts” by
the means listed in Civ.R. 56(C) showing that a “triable issue of fact” exists. Mitseff v.
Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 526 N.E.2d 798, 801 (1988).
{¶25} Pursuant to the above rule, a trial court may not enter summary judgment
if it appears a material fact is genuinely disputed. Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421,
429, 674 N.E.2d 1164 (1997), citing Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264
(1996).
{¶26} In order to prove a claim for breach of contract by CMEF, Dr. McDonald
must show: 1) the existence of a contract; 2) performance by the plaintiff; 3)
nonperformance by the defendant; and 4) damages as a result. Textron Fin. Corp. v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 115 Ohio App.3d 137, 144, 684 N.E.2d 1261 (9th
Dist.1996), citing Garofalo v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 104 Ohio App.3d 95, 108,
661 N.E.2d 218 (8th Dist.1995). A plaintiff must prove the elements of a breach of
contract by a preponderance of the evidence. Cooper & Pachell v. Haslage, 142 Ohio
App.3d 704, 707, 756 N.E.2d 1248 (9th Dist.2001).
{¶27} Dr. McDonald argues CMEF breached the Resident Agreement when it
failed to give Dr. McDonald a certificate of completion when he passed the USMLE III.
He states the Resident Agreement and the incorporated Resident Physician Manual
gives no deadline for passing the USMLE III. He further argues CMEF breached the
contract by failing to engage in remediation and grievance procedures listed in the
Resident Physician Manual incorporated by reference in the contract.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
10
{¶28} The parties have established the existence of a contract. There is no
dispute Dr. McDonald and CMEF entered into a contract for Dr. McDonald to perform
his PGY3 with CMEF. The term of the second Resident Agreement for PGY3 began on
July 1, 2003 and ended on December 31, 2003. Dr. McDonald’s responsibilities as a
resident with CMEF were outlined in the Resident Agreement:
The Resident shall devote full-time effort to performing satisfactorily in all
areas of the residency program including, without limitation, demonstrating
didactic and clinical competency and displaying appropriate, professional
behavior. General responsibilities are outlined in the Resident Physician
Manual, which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated in this Agreement
by reference. The Resident must also abide by the then-current Human
Resources and Hospital policies of each institution to which the Resident
may rotate. To the extent that these policies are in conflict with, and/or
inconsistent with Exhibits A and/or A-1, the latter Exhibits shall be
controlling. Aultman Hospital reserves the right to amend Exhibit A and its
Human Resources and Hospital policies from time to time at its sole
discretion. The position of housestaff physician entails provision of care
commensurate with the housestaff’s level of advancement and
competence, under the general supervision of appropriately privileged
attending teaching staff. This includes:
Participation in safe, effective and compassionate patient care;
Developing an understanding of ethical, socioeconomic and
medical legal issues that affect graduate medical education and
how to apply cost containment measures in the provision of patient
care;
Participation in the educational activities of the training program
and, as appropriate, assumption of responsibility for teaching and
supervising other residents and students, and participation in
institutional orientation and education programs and other activities
involving the clinical staff;
Participation in institutional committees and councils to which the
housestaff physician is appointed or invited;
Performance of these duties in accordance with the established
practices, procedures and policies of the institution and those of its
programs, clinical departments and other institutions to which the
housestaff physician is assigned, including, among others, state
licensing requirements for physicians in training, where these exist;
Participation in the evaluation of the quality of education provided
by the hospital; and
Assistance in recruiting new residents to the institution.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
11
{¶29} The Resident Agreement outlined the program responsibilities:
CMEF shall offer the Resident a postgraduate training opportunity in a
community hospital setting. CMEF agrees to provide the Resident the
following support, benefits and conditions of employment.
A) Financial Support: See Exhibit A-1 incorporated in this Agreement by
reference.
The Resident shall receive an annual stipend in the amount of
$42,972.00, payable biweekly and an annual Education Allowance in
accordance with the post-graduate year.
B) Benefits: See Exhibit A.
1. Sick Time, Bereavement Pay, Jury Duty
2. Healthcare Insurance, Life Insurance, Short-Term Disability
3. Professional Liability Insurance
4. Vacation Time
5. Leave of Absences
6. On-Call Rooms, Meal Allowances, and Lab Coats
C) Other Responsibilities and Policies: See Exhibit A.
1. Duty Hours
2. Supervision
3. Harassment Policy
4. Physician Impairment
5. Promotion and Retention
6. Dismissal and Other Forms of Corrective Action
7. Grievance
8. Moonlighting
9. Reduction/Closure
10. Medical Services
11. Counseling/Psychological Service
{¶30} The parties agree as to the existence of a contract. The next issue to
analyze is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that Dr. McDonald
performed the terms of the contract and CMEF did not perform its responsibilities under
the contract in order for Dr. McDonald’s claim of breach of contract to survive summary
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
12
judgment. The relevant terms of the contract to answer these questions are found in
the Resident Physician Manual. It states:
PROMOTION AND REAPPOINTMENT
Residents are promoted on the basis of acceptable periodic clinical
evaluations, which may be supplemented by other evaluation methods.
In most instances, contractual appointment is equated with academic
promotion. Under some circumstances, a resident may be reappointed to
repeat an academic year.
The decision to reappoint at the same level or promote a resident to the
next level of post-graduate training shall be done annually. The decision
will be made after review of the resident’s performance.
The following factors are used in the decision to promote:
1. All evaluations of the resident’s performance
2. Pass the USMLE [United States Medical Licensing Exam] II to be
promoted to a PGY-2 (excluding Transitional)
3. Pass the USMLE III to complete the residency program
4. Any other criteria deemed appropriate by the Program Director
The Program Director will communicate reappointment and promotional
decisions to the GMERC [Graduate Medical Education and Research
Committee]. All appointments (same and next academic year) are
restricted to a maximum period of 12 months with no implied promise of
extension. Each resident is required to sign a contract, signifying
acceptance of the appointment.
If significant deficiencies in the resident’s performance are identified, a
decision may be made not to promote. As much advance written notice
as possible will be given to this resident. When remediation is decided
upon rather than promotion, the resident’s Residency Program Director,
when appropriate, will arrange a plan, which includes monitoring
performance. The Program Director may choose to extend the existing
contract for the length of time necessary to complete the remediation
process. The resident may use the grievance procedure to appeal the
decision not to promote.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
13
{¶31} Dr. McDonald states the contract is silent as to a date or deadline by
which the resident must pass the USMLE III exam in order to be eligible to complete the
CMEF residency program. The thrust of his argument is that CMEF failed to perform
under the contract when it did not give Dr. McDonald a certificate of completion because
(1) the contract does not state a deadline for passing the USMLE III, (2) Dr. McDonald
passed the USMLE III, and (3) Dr. McDonald completed his clinical rotation CMEF with
satisfactory marks.
CMEF argues in the contrary that on December 31, 2003, the
contractual relationship between CMEF and Dr. McDonald terminated.
CMEF
gratuitously extended the date by which Dr. McDonald could pass the USMLE III, but
Dr. McDonald failed to meet those multiple deadlines. In order to complete the CMEF
residency program, Dr. McDonald was required to pass the USMLE III; the question is,
pursuant to the contract, when was he required to pass the USMLE III exam?
{¶32} The parties' arguments as to the terms of the contract require this Court to
engage in contract interpretation.
When confronted with an issue of contract
interpretation, our role is to give effect to the intent of the parties. Westfield Ins. Group
v. Affinia Dev., L.L.C., 2012-Ohio-5348, 982 N.E.2d 132, ¶ 21 (5th Dist.). We will
examine the contract as a whole and presume that the intent of the parties is reflected
in the language of the contract. In addition, we will look to the plain and ordinary
meaning of the language used in the contract unless another meaning is clearly
apparent from the contents of the agreement. When the language of a written contract
is clear, a court may look no further than the writing itself to find the intent of the parties.
“As a matter of law, a contract is unambiguous if it can be given a definite legal
meaning.” Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison, Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 397, 2011-Ohio-
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
14
2720, 953 N.E.2d 285, ¶ 37 citing Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216,
2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, ¶ 11.
{¶33} On February 27, 2002, Dr. McDonald entered into a Resident Agreement
of Appointment with CMEF for Dr. McDonald’s PGY3. The term of the contract was
from July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2003.
On January 14, 2003, during the term of Dr.
McDonald’s PGY3 contract with CMEF, Dr. McDonald entered into another Resident
Agreement with CMEF that extended the term of the PGY3 contract by six months. The
term of appointment was from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003. The total term of Dr.
McDonald’s PGY3 with CMEF was one year, five months, and thirty days.
{¶34} The Resident Physician Manual, incorporated into the Resident
Agreement by reference, states in the “Promotion and Reappointment” section: “In most
instances, contractual appointment is equated with academic promotion.
* * * All
appointments (same and next academic year) are restricted to a maximum period of 12
months with no implied promise of extension.
Each resident is required to sign a
contract, signifying acceptance of the appointment.” The factors by which CMEF uses
to determine whether to promote a resident are:
1. All evaluations of the resident’s performance
2. Pass the USMLE [United States Medical Licensing Exam] II to be
promoted to a PGY-2 (excluding Transitional)
3. Pass the USMLE III to complete the residency program
4. Any other criteria deemed appropriate by the Program Director.
{¶35} Dr. McDonald’s contractual appointment with CMEF terminated on
December 31, 2003. Dr. McDonald testified in his deposition that as of December 31,
2003, he was no longer engaged in clinical rotations with CMEF pursuant to the resident
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
15
duties outlined in the Resident Agreement. Likewise, CMEF was no longer providing
Dr. McDonald with the program responsibilities, such as benefits, outlined in the
Resident Agreement after December 31, 2003.
{¶36} The contract states that appointments are restricted to a maximum period
of 12 months with no implied promise of extension.
Dr. McDonald’s contractual
appointment for his PGY3 was for approximately seventeen months.
The contract
further states that in most cases, contractual appointment is equated with academic
promotion. A factor for academic promotion is to pass the USMLE III for completion of
the residency program.
Considering the language of the Resident Agreement and
incorporated Resident Physician Manual as a whole, it is unambiguous that a resident
must pass the USMLE III within the contractual appointment period. Dr. McDonald’s
contractual appointment terminated on December 31, 2003. Accordingly, we find no
genuine issue of material fact that Dr. McDonald failed to perform under the terms of the
Resident Agreement and Resident Physician Manual by his failure to timely pass the
USMLE III exam. Dr. McDonald’s failure to perform obviates a claim for breach of
contract against CMEF.
{¶37} CMEF granted Dr. McDonald extensions to pass the USMLE III until
January 2005.
Assuming for sake of argument that the letters from CMEF to Dr.
McDonald granting Dr. McDonald additional time to pass the USMLE III exam were
contract extensions rather than mere gratuities, there is no dispute of fact that Dr.
McDonald did not pass the USMLE III exam until October 18, 2005.
{¶38} Ultimately, CMEF informed Dr. McDonald it could not grant Dr. McDonald
a certificate of completion for the CMEF residency program due to Dr. McDonald’s
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
failure to timely pass the USMLE III exam.
16
CMEF further stated because Dr.
McDonald’s final rotation with CMEF terminated twenty months previously, CMEF could
not verify Dr. McDonald’s clinical skills. Dr. McDonald submitted a letter to CMEF on
December 7, 2005, requesting CMEF to reverse its decision. Dr. McDonald argues that
pursuant to the decision not to promote, Dr. McDonald should have been permitted to
utilize the grievance procedures as follows:
If significant deficiencies in the resident’s performance are identified, a
decision may be made not to promote. As much advance written notice
as possible will be given to this resident. When remediation is decided
upon rather than promotion, the resident’s Residency Program Director,
when appropriate, will arrange a plan, which includes monitoring
performance. The Program Director may choose to extend the existing
contract for the length of time necessary to complete the remediation
process. The resident may use the grievance procedure to appeal the
decision not to promote.
(Resident Physician Manual, Promotion and Reappointment). Dr. McDonald states the
failure to allow Dr. McDonald utilize the grievance procedure outlined in the Resident
Physician Manual is a further breach by CMEF.
{¶39} The trial court held that this argument could not support a claim for breach
of contract because the contract upon which the claim was based terminated on
December 31, 2003. We agree. Just as Dr. McDonald was no longer performing the
duties required of him by the Resident Agreement, he was no longer able to exercise
the procedures outlined in the Resident Agreement and incorporated Resident
Physician Manual.
{¶40} Upon our de novo review, we find reasonable minds can only conclude
CMEF did not breach the Resident Agreement of Appointment and incorporated
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240
17
Resident Physician Manual when it denied Dr. McDonald a certificate of completion for
Dr. McDonald’s failure to timely pass the USMLE III exam.
{¶41} The sole Assignment of Error of Plaintiff-Appellant Paul McDonald, M.D. is
overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶42} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, J.,
Gwin, P.J. and
Hoffman, J., concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
