Kimmel, C. v. The Reading Hospital, et al (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A03014-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 CRAIG KIMMEL, M.D. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. THE READING HOSPITAL AND READING HEALTH SYSTEM AND THE READING HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER AND THE READING HOSPITAL MEDICAL GROUP AND READING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, Appellees No. 1021 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order May 24, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 13-04027 BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON, and PLATT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.: FILED JUNE 24, 2014 Appellant, Craig Kimmel, M.D., appeals from the order entered on May 24, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, which sustained Medical Center, Reading Hospital Medical Group and Reading Professional Services, preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. After careful review, we affirm. On October 1, 2007, Kimmel and The Reading Hospital Medical Group the PEA is at issue in this appeal. Paragraph 13(c) provides, in pertinent he initial term, this Agreement may be J-A03014-14 terminated by either party without cause upon not less than ninety (90) October 1, 2010, Kimmel and Reading Professional Services executed an initial term is the period from October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2013. Subject to earlier termination in accordance with Paragraph 13 and as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, the initial extended term of this Agreement shall commence on October 1, 2010 and ll other terms and conditions of the PEA shall remain in full Id., at ¶ 8. The FAA did not amend paragraph 13(c) of the PEA, i.e., the provision that provides that the PEA can be terminated by either party without cause by providing nine On November 1, 2011, Kimmel and Reading Professional Services executed another amendment to the PEA, entitled Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (SAA). The SAA did not amend paragraph 13(c) of ¶ 2. On March 21, 2012, Reading Professional Services provided Kimmel with 90 day -2- J-A03014-14 as authorized by paragraph 13(c) of the PEA. Kimmel was paid his salary and benefits through June 30, 2012. On March 21, 2013, Kimmel filed a complaint against The Reading Hospital, Reading Health System, The Reading Hospital Medical Center, The Reading Hospital Medical Group, and Reading Professional Services. In the complaint, Kimmel alleged that Reading Health System breached an employment contract between him and Reading Professional Services and violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment & Collection Law by refusing to pay him salary and benefits through September 30, 2013. Reading Health On May 24, 2013, the trial court entered an order sustaining Reading Health prejudice. This appeal followed. On appeal, Kimmel raises the following issues for our review: 1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt commit an error of law by disregarding the clear and unambiguous language of the Second event of any inconsistency, ambiguity or conflict between the Employment Agreement and this Amendment with respect to term and by deciding that the language in Section 13(c) the Physicians Employment Agreement controlled? 2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt commit an error of law by sustaining a demurrer. -3- J-A03014-14 Before addressing the merits of the within appeal, we set forth our scope and standard of review: preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer is plenary and question is whether the complaint states a claim for relief cognizable under the law. Schwarzwaelder v. Fox, 895 A.2d 614, 618 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted), When affirming a result in a dismissal of an action, this Court will only affirm when the case is free and clear from doubt. Youndt v. First Nat Bank, 868 A.2d 539, 544 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). All material facts set forth in a complaint and reasonable deductions therefrom are admitted as true for the purposes of review. Welteroth v. Harvey, 912 A.2d 863, 866 (Pa. Super. 2006). Moreover, standard of review is de novo General Refractories Co. v. Insruance Co. of N. Am., 906 A.2d 610 (Pa. Super. 2006). ant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be the existence of a contract, including its essential terms; (2) a breach of a duty imposed by CoreStates , 723 A.2d 1053, 1058 (Pa. Super. 1999). Here, the PEA, as amended, permitted Reading Professional Services to tice, which it -4- J-A03014-14 the initial term, this agreement may be terminated by either party without 2013. See FAA, 10/1/10, at ¶ 3. termination without cause provision of paragraph 13(c). Id., at ¶ 8. The SAA, which did not change the defini 11/1/11, at ¶ 2. As such, under the plain language of the agreement, Reading Professional Services was permitted to terminate the agreement by provisions of the PEA and subsequent amendments it is clear that the SAA does not guarantee the payment of salary and benefits irrespective of future salary amount would be $321,599.00, not that he was guaranteed to receive effect until September 20, 2013, if the PEA was not terminated, as permitted -5- J-A03014-14 terminate the PEA and it rightfully did so. As such, we are in agreement with the trial court that Kimmel failed to state a claim for breach of contract. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/24/2014 -6-
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.
