Skip to main content

Sentara Medical Group v. Klena

Va.February 26, 2026No. 250671
RemandedKlena
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Excerpt

Appellant challenges a judgment of the circuit court sustaining a plea of sovereign immunity filed by a separately incorporated subsidiary of the Chesapeake Hospital Authority (the "Authority") in response to claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with appellant's employment agreement with one of its physicians. For the reasons explained in this opinion, it is concluded on the present appeal that the circuit court erred in sustaining the plea of sovereign immunity and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved a dispute over a doctor's employment contract. Dr. Klena had an employment agreement to work as a physician, but there were problems with the contract that led to a legal fight. Sentara Medical Group sued, claiming breach of contract and interference with the employment agreement. The hospital authority they sued tried to avoid the lawsuit by claiming "sovereign immunity" - essentially arguing they couldn't be sued because they were a government entity. **What the Court Decided** The Virginia court ruled that the hospital authority was wrong to claim sovereign immunity protection. The lower court had initially agreed with the hospital's claim that they couldn't be sued, but the appeals court disagreed and sent the case back to be heard again. The court found that the hospital authority's separately incorporated subsidiary did not qualify for this special legal protection. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling is important because it means certain healthcare employers can't automatically avoid lawsuits by claiming government immunity. When employers try to hide behind legal protections to avoid honoring employment contracts, workers may still have options to pursue their claims in court, even against hospital systems with government connections.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win
Campbell
Va.Dec 2025

The language of the Virginia wage theft statute, Code § 40.1-29, specifically lists wages and salaries, but it does not expressly apply to commissions, and its context does not support an interpretation that extends the statute's protections to commissions. Resting its contrary conclusion on the remedial purpose of the statute, past decisions interpreting the term "wages" in other contexts, and an interpretation by an administrative agency contained in a field manual, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court concluding that Code § 40.1-29 did not apply to commissions. However, neither the plain meaning of the terms "wages" or "commissions," nor the use of the term wages in the context of Code § 40.1-29, suggests that the use of that term sweeps in the concept of "commissions," and contentions to the contrary, while compelling, are properly addressed to the legislature. Therefore, the most plausible reading of Code § 40.1-29 is that the General Assembly did not intend for the wage theft statute to apply to commissions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Defendant Win
Ingleside
Va.Dec 2025

In an interlocutory appeal brought by medical staffing companies concerning a physician-plaintiff's claim against them under the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act, Code § 40.1-27.3, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of their plea in bar to that claim because the alleged retaliatory action taken against the plaintiff -- removing her from the work schedule in March of 2021 -- took place more than one year prior to her filing suit on April 1, 2022. The fact that she only later discovered her injury to be greater than she first realized as a result of a June 2, 2021, termination letter confirming that the termination of her employment was effective as of March 3, 2021, is immaterial to when she first sustained that injury. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Remanded
Vlaming v. West Point School Board
Va.Dec 2023
Remanded

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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.