TULSA AMBULATORY PROCEDURE CENTER v. OLMSTEAD
Case Details
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The court reversed the Commissioner of Social Security Administration's decision and remanded the case for further consideration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Excerpt
¶ 0 Medical providers sued a former employee for breach of an employment agreement. Employee filed counterclaims alleging he was owed unpaid wages and bonuses. Providers filed an answer to the counterclaims, raising \failure to state a claim\ as the sole affirmative defense. After nearly four-years of litigation, providers attempted to raise, for the first time, that the contract was illegal and therefore void as a matter of law. The lower court issued an order finding providers had waived the affirmative defense, thus precluding its use as shield from liability. Following a trial on the merits, the trial judge determined providers had breached the employment agreement and issued a money judgment of $387,618.36 in favor of employee. Providers appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, concluding that refusal to consider providers' claim of illegality was an abuse of discretion. We granted certiorari and now hold the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in striking the Plaintiffs/Appellants' last-minute effort to raise a new affirmative defense.
Similar Rulings
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.