{"id":3155,"date":"2014-06-23T13:56:11","date_gmt":"2014-06-23T17:56:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.khpi.org\/blog\/?p=3155"},"modified":"2014-06-25T11:51:49","modified_gmt":"2014-06-25T15:51:49","slug":"university-of-louisville-vs-norton-healthcare-spins-up-again-in-the-courts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.khpi.org\/blog\/university-of-louisville-vs-norton-healthcare-spins-up-again-in-the-courts\/","title":{"rendered":"University of Louisville vs. Norton Healthcare Spins Up Again in the Courts"},"content":{"rendered":"

I made a trip to Frankfort Circuit Court this morning in part to obtain additional documents related to this legal dispute, but chiefly to attend the hearing in Judge Wingate\u2019s court that rekindles the court proceedings that were stayed last February in order to give the two parties a chance for mediation. As I recently reported<\/a>, court-ordered mediation failed to produce a mutually agreeable result. Several sources confirm my understanding that after two mediation sessions, the parties were offered a chance to continue and that the University of Louisville unilaterally declined to do so. UofL has not responded to my private email or public request for confirmation or comment. I had a naive hope that the report of the mediator to the court would illuminate matters, but alas, the brief report tells us nothing more than that mediation failed. Nonetheless, we have additional publicly available court filings that give us a pretty good idea of the issues in dispute.<\/p>\n

First-round action.<\/strong>
\nThis morning, as anticipated, Norton\u2019s attorneys entered their motion to lift the stay (which was accepted), their motion to dismiss UofL’s counterclaims (also apparently accepted), and to submit their First Amended Complaint to the court. UofL objected to this latter motion on the grounds that the amended complaint contained a motion to enforce an oral settlement that Norton\u2013 but not UofL\u2013 claims to have been reached. \u00a0Norton claims the the University blew up that agreement the next day by reintroducing poison pills that it knew would be deal-breakers. UofL claims the parties were still negotiating. \u00a0The argument in court today was that if in fact an enforceable agreement had been reached, all the other collateral issues would fade\u00a0away and the litigation\u00a0that might otherwise take 5 or 6 years would be simplified. The Judge tended to agree with this argument.<\/p>\n

When all was said and done, the\u00a0gist of it is that Judge Wingate allowed Norton to file its\u00a0amended complaint as is but required that the parties focus their discovery and litigation over the next 60 days on whether or not Norton and the University did in fact reach the oral agreement identified in the complaint that Norton wants the court to enforce. Norton would have at that time the option to file a separate motion to enforce.<\/p>\n

Is the Commonwealth in or out?<\/strong>
\nA representative of Kentucky\u2019s Attorney General\u2019s Office was present but did not speak. No decision has been reached on whether or not the Commonwealth will join the case as has been strongly advocated by the University. The Governor and his administration are in the unenviable situation of possibly having to choose sides between the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky! \u00a0Although it should not make a difference, Stites & Harbison\u2013 the law firm representing the University of Louisville\u2013 is where the Governor used to practice law and is where his son (who is running for the office of Attorney General) is employed today. If this case goes on as long as some fear, it will become even more politicized than it is now.<\/p>\n

The University\u2019s Case.<\/strong> I was able to obtain the the University\u2019s court filing<\/a> responding to Norton\u2019s original complaint and which makes UofL\u2019s counter claims. It tells the University\u2019s side of the story which not surprisingly is quite different from Norton\u2019s. If the lease and affiliation agreement that are at the core of this dispute were used in a reading comprehension test, I believe that even a junior high school student would not agree with the University\u2019s interpretation and on which it hangs its case. However, seems likely that extended deposition and other sworn testimony will be necessary to sort our fact from spin.<\/p>\n

As I work through the new documents and attempt to reconstruct this morning\u2019s arguments in their entirity, I will post new materials and may\u00a0add additional commentary to this article.<\/p>\n

Peter Hasselbacher, MD
\nPresident, KHPI
\nEmeritus Professor of Medicine, UofL
\nJune 23, 2014, 1:00 pm<\/p>\n

Downloads<\/strong>:
\n\u2022 UofL\u2019s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims Against Norton Healthcare, 1-29-2014\u00a0(pdf 2-2 MB)<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 \u00a0Exhibits to UofL\u2019s Answer of 1-29-2014<\/em>
\nA. \u00a0KentuckyOne withdraws language of right of first refusal to enter pediatric affiliation agreement with university of Louisville, 9-10-2103.<\/a>
\nB. \u00a0Lease on\u00a0land under Children\u2019s Hospital, 12-8-1981.<\/a>
\nC. \u00a0Agreement to enter lease agreement. 8-12-1981.<\/a>
\nD. \u00a0Affiliation Agreement, 1962<\/a>.
\nE. \u00a0Agreement for Provision of Pediatric Critical Care \u2026 July 2006
\nF. \u00a0UofL threatens breach of lease if not given access to Norton\u2019s Board of Trustees Executive Meetings including closed executive sessions, 2-14-2011.<\/a>
\nG. \u00a0Norton’s attorneys argue\u00a0such full access is illegal and improper, 2-15-2011.<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2022 \u00a0Audio recording of\u00a0the hearing in Franklin Circuit Court, 6-23-2-14 \u00a0(MP3 \u00a09.3 MB)<\/a><\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>