Breach of Contract Cases

The plaintiff, Jordan Nissensohn, Administrator of the Estate of Michael Nissensohn, appealed from a final judgment of the Superior Court granting the motion for summary judgment of the defendants, University Medical Group (UMG), Alan Epstein, M.D., and Steven Sepe, M.D. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Superior Court erred by finding that: (1) the plaintiff did not engage in protected conduct under the Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act (RIWPA), G.L. 1956 chapter 50 of title 28 (2) Dr. Epstein and UMG's allegedly defamatory statements were substantially true or untimely (3) the plaintiff's teaching duties were voluntary (4) the plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim was preempted by the Payment of Wages Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 14 of title 28 (5) the plaintiff failed to establish his claim for tortious interference with contractual relations (6) Dr. Epstein's alleged interference was not causally connected to the plaintiff's failure to set up a new practice and (7) the plaintiff did not provide sufficient nonhearsay evidence to support his conversion claim.<br><br>The Supreme Court determined that: the plaintiff did not engage in RIWPA-protected conduct because he did not report a violation of the law the plaintiff's defamation claims abated upon his death Dr. Epstein's promise to pay the plaintiff additional teaching money was not supported by consideration the plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim based upon UMG's failure to pay him for patient care was untimely under the Payment of Wages Act the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support each element of his tortious interference claims and the plaintiff waived any argument that his conversion claim was supported by nonhearsay evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. <br>

Civilly committed appellant claims that the district court erred by denying his motion for default judgment and dismissing his claims against respondents after determining that he failed to plead facts sufficient to prove that (1) he has a disability under either the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) (2) he has a valid breach-of-contract claim and (3) respondents violated the Minnesota Comprehensive Adult Mental Health Act (the mental-health act). We affirm.