Stevens v. Anesthesiology Consultants of Cheyenne, LLC

Anesthesiology Consultants of Cheyenne, LLC (ACC), and its members (plaintiffs) sued former member Dr. Ronald Stevens and his company, High Plains Anesthesia, P.C. (HPA) (defendants) for taking part of ACC’s practice. ACC provided services at a hospital, a surgery center, and the Eye Center. Stevens worked for ACC through HPA. Nurse anesthetist Cassie Rivers initially worked at the Eye Center directly for ACC but became an HPA employee after she married Stevens. Rivers continued working for ACC at the Eye Center, but ACC switched to paying Rivers through HPA while continuing to keep about half the income she generated. Stevens’s practice included pain-management cases that were less profitable than anesthesia. In December 2013, ACC’s billing provider emailed ACC managers Drs. Stevens, Dourrough, and Skolnick asking whether they intended to carve out the pain practice and, if so, recommending a January 1, 2014, transition date. Stevens replied that he would implement the carveout by continuing to work for ACC at the hospital and surgery center, but HPA would take over and bill facilities directly for all other work he or his employees did elsewhere, including the pain practice and work at the Eye Center, beginning January 1, 2014. Stevens copied Dourrough and Skolnick, but they did not read his email. When Stevens asked about it, they said they had received it and everything was okay. However, Dourrough and Skolnick thought Stevens would carve out only the pain practice, which they agreed Stevens could take. On January 1, the Eye Center stopped paying ACC and began paying HPA. Rivers kept working at the hospital two days a week and invoicing ACC for that work, but her invoices omitted her work at the Eye Center the other three days a week. In June 2014, Dourrough noticed the missing income and confronted Stevens. Stevens reminded Dourrough about his email and printed a copy, but Dourrough told other ACC members Stevens had diverted income without notice, and the members expelled Stevens. In July, Dourrough emailed Skolnick saying Stevens wanted to keep the Eye Center business and asking about ACC’s intentions, as hiring someone to replace Rivers there would cost more than the work generated. Skolnick responded that giving Stevens the Eye Center was okay. Rivers continued to work at the Eye Center, but ACC did not try to recapture its business. The court nonetheless granted ACC and its members summary judgment. Stevens and his company appealed.