Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wound Care Centers, Inc. and Diversified Clinical Services, Inc. v. David Catalane; Rodney Kosanovich; Philip Georgevich; Paul Willis; Rick Scanlan

August 9, 2011

WOUND CARE CENTERS, INC. AND DIVERSIFIED CLINICAL SERVICES, INC. PLAINTIFFS
v.
DAVID CATALANE; RODNEY KOSANOVICH; PHILIP GEORGEVICH; PAUL WILLIS; RICK SCANLAN, ROBERT YELLENIK; SAMINA NASEER; VIDHU SHARMA; AND OHIO VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL, DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joy Flowers Conti United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CONTI, District Judge.

Pending before the court is a motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Motion" (ECF No. 67)) filed by plaintiffs Wound Care Centers, Inc. ("WCCI"), and Diversified Clinical Services, Inc. ("Diversified" and together with WCCI, "plaintiffs" or "WCCS"). Upon review of the Motion (ECF No. 67), the brief in support (ECF No. 68), the response (ECF No. 70), filed by defendants David Catalane, Rodney Kosanovich, Philip Georgevich, Paul Willis, Rick Scanlan, Robert Yellenik, Samina Naseer, Vidhu Sharma (the "physician defendants"),*fn1 and Ohio Valley General Hospital ("OVGH " and together with physician defendants, "defendants"), and the record of the instant case, the court will deny the Motion for the reasons set forth below.

I.Background

On February 8, 2011, this court issued a memorandum opinion and order, (the "Memorandum Opinion" (ECF No. 65)), denying in its entirety plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3) against defendants. Wound Care Centers, Inc. v. Catalane, No. 10-336, 2011 WL 553875, at *27 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2011). In their motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs moved this court to enjoin, for a period of one year within twenty miles of OVGH, the physician defendants from:

a) establishing, operating, contracting with or entering into any business relationship with a facility or company which has as its primary business the treatment of chronic non-healing wounds, b) employing, hiring, or contracting for services with any employee or former employee of WCCS, and c) exchanging or contracting with any person or entity to provide, or contracting with any competitor of WCCS that provides comprehensive wound care management services of the kind provided by WCCS; and 2) from disclosing, publishing, or disseminating confidential information as defined in the relevant physician affiliation agreements ("PAAs")[]; and to enjoin OVGH from:

1) employing any physician defendant directly or through a similar facility that has as its primary business the treatment of chronic non-healing wounds; and 2) disclosing, publishing, or disseminating confidential information as defined in the PAAs, to include causing the employees of OVGH to disclose, publish or disseminate the same confidential information.

Wound Care Centers, Inc., 2011 WL 553875, at *2.

In rejecting plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law*fn2 which are challenged in the instant Motion. In weighing the need for injunctive relief and deriving the corresponding facts and conclusions of law, the court conducted a four-part analysis as contemplated by Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Botticella, 613 F.3d 102, 109 (3d Cir. 2010), and other applicable case law. The court concluded that plaintiffs did not make the requisite showing to justify the remedy sought. Wound Care Centers, Inc., 2011 WL 553875, at *27.

Under the Bimbo Bakeries analysis the court evaluated: (1) plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was denied; (3) if greater harm would be caused to the nonmoving party by granting the injunction; and (4) if public interest favors the injunction. Id. at **13-14 (citing Bimbo Bakeries, 613 F.3d at 109). Specifically, the court found that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on the first two prongs of the Bimbo Bakeries analysis, and that the remaining two prongs of the analysis weighed against the plaintiffs. Id. at *27.

On March 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed the instant Motion requesting the court to amend its findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the court's denial of injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs request the court to make the following specific additional findings:

(a) In part, the purpose behind the restrictive covenants contained within the PAA's [sic] is to protect the goodwill and patient referral basis created and generated by the Plaintiffs through its operation of the Center.

(b) The restrictions within the PAA's [sic] are necessary and legitimate to protect the goodwill and patient referral base created and generated by the Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs continue to manage, among others, Wound Care Centers at Jefferson Health Services, East Liverpool City Hospital, and St. Elizabeth Boardman Health Center.

(c) WCCS has a legitimate business interest in the enforcement of the PAA's [sic] despite the closure of the Center at OVGH as WCCS continues to operate existing Centers and open new Centers within the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.