Defendant's Attorney: Not Available

Description: Wichita, Kansas employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff.

This case stems from the termination of the independent contractor
relationship between Plaintiff-Appellant, Dr. Kolette Smith, and Defendants-
Appellees, Brian Williams and Labette County Medical Center (“Labette Health”)
(collectively “Defendants”). Dr. Smith appeals from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to Defendants on her claims for (1) denial of a property interest
without due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (2) tortious interference with
prospective business advantage under Kansas law. Smith v. Williams,
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Background
The parties do not dispute the material facts of this case. I Aplt. App. 53 n.1.
Dr. Smith is a licensed physician in Kansas. Id. at 53. Labette Health is a county
hospital with its primary facility located in Kansas. Id. at 73–74. Brian Williams has
served as President and CEO of Labette Health since September 2015. Id. at 53.
Dr. Smith worked as a physician at Labette Health from 1999 until January 2018. Id.
This court need not discuss the parties’ contractual relationship at length.
Suffice it to say that multiple written agreements reflected Dr. Smith’s independent
contractor relationship with Labette Health, but none of those agreements were
signed by all parties. See III Aplt. App. 495–505, 509–18, 523–25. Each of these
agreements contained a non-compete provision stating that Dr. Smith would not
provide health care services at other care entities within a 60-mile driving distance of
Labette Health during the term of the agreement or for two years following its
termination. See id. at 502–03, 516, 524. Labette Health paid Dr. Smith pursuant to
each of the agreements even though they were unsigned. IV Aplt. App. 634. In the
fall of 2017, after failing to negotiate a new independent contractor agreement,
Mr. Williams informed Dr. Smith that Labette Health was terminating all of her
active agreements, and that she would be subject to the non-compete provisions in
those agreements. Id. at 634–35; III Aplt. App. 409–11.

In January 2018, Dr. Smith entered into an independent contractor agreement
Appellate Case: 23-3227 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 12/18/2024 Page: 2
with Docs Who Care, a company that contracts with hospitals to provide temporary
physician services. II Aplt. App. 174–75, 207–08. This agreement did not guarantee
Dr. Smith any specific hours or shifts. Id. at 178, 208. In the year following her
departure from Labette Health, Dr. Smith worked a total of 2,649 hours through Docs
Who Care at nearly a dozen hospitals around Kansas. Id. at 174–75, 209. Two such
hospitals where Dr. Smith sought and received clinical privileges through Docs Who
Care were Newton Medical Center and McPherson Hospital. I Aplt. App. 60.
In February 2019, Dr. Smith worked a shift at Wilson Medical Center, which
was within the 60-mile radius of the non-compete area. III Aplt. App. 526–31.
Mr. Williams contacted Docs Who Care to inform them that he believed that
Dr. Smith’s non-compete agreement was enforceable even though it was unsigned.
Id. at 531–33. Docs Who Care told Mr. Williams that it would honor his request
regarding Dr. Smith. Id. at 527. Mr. Williams then asked that Dr. Smith request an
exception to her non-compete and stated that he would grant the exception. Id.
at 526.

The following month, Docs Who Care told Dr. Smith that Wilson Medical
Center had another shift available for her. II Aplt. App. 193–94. Docs Who Care
informed Dr. Smith that they had Mr. Williams’s “okay” in writing, and that the shift
was hers if she wanted it. Id. at 251. Nonetheless, Dr. Smith declined this shift at
Wilson Medical Center. Id. at 194.

Dr. Smith sued Labette Health and Mr. Williams. I Aplt. App. 16–32. After
Appellate Case: 23-3227 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 12/18/2024 Page: 3
the district court considered motions to dismiss, 1 the remaining claims were for
(1) denial of a property interest under § 1983; (2) tortious interference with
prospective business advantage; (3) false light invasion of privacy; and
(4) defamation. Id. at 60. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment on all
four claims. Id.

The district court found that it was unnecessary to decide whether the parties
had a valid contract because Dr. Smith’s claims failed on other grounds. Id. at 62.
First, the court granted Defendants summary judgment on Dr. Smith’s § 1983 claim
because it found that “the evidence demonstrates that [Dr. Smith] was able to fully
utilize her medical license after leaving Labette Health[.]” Id. at 63. The court
emphasized Dr. Smith’s hours of work at various hospitals after leaving Labette
Heath and found that there was “no evidence showing that Defendants’ actions
destroyed the value or utility of [Dr. Smith’s] medical license[.]” Id.
Next, the district court granted Defendants summary judgment on Dr. Smith’s
tortious interference with prospective business advantage claim. Id. at 64. The court
first rejected Dr. Smith’s arguments that she lost business expectancies at Newton
Medical Center and McPherson Hospital because in both instances she received
clinical privileges at those hospitals. Id. The court then rejected Dr. Smith’s
argument that she lost a business expectancy at Wilson Medical Center because “the
1evidence demonstrates that Defendants’ actions did not cause the loss of this
‘business expectancy,’ but rather Plaintiff turned it down.” Id. at 65.
The district court also granted Defendants summary judgment on Dr. Smith’s
false light invasion of privacy and defamation claims, but Dr. Smith does not
challenge those rulings on appeal.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: