QHG of Springdale, Inc. v. Archer, No. CA07-1115.
Dr. Ernest Archer, an OB/GYN, and his employer, QHG of Springdale (“QHG”), entered into a two-year employment contract in 2000. In 2002, they entered into a second, five-year contract. Dr. Archer complained that QHG (1) repeatedly denied his requests for vacation and continuing medical education, (2) failed to provide adequate personnel and equipment, and (3) failed to provide rotating call coverage. Specifically, Dr. Archer alleged that, with the exception of a few weeks here and there, he had been on call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week for more than two years. In January 2004, QHG terminated Dr. Archer’s employment without cause under the 180-day notice option of the contract, and his employment with QHG would end in July 2004. Dr. Archer resigned his medical privileges in May 2004 because he could no longer operate safely given problems with his hands. QHG then terminated Dr. Archer for cause.
Dr. Archer filed a complaint against QHG alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment regarding QHG’s failure to provide rotating call coverage. The trial court granted QHG’s motion for directed verdict on the unjust enrichment claim. The breach of contract claim went to the jury, which found QHC had violated the 2002 employment contract and awarded Dr. Archer $387,500 in damages. Both parties appealed.
Regarding the unjust enrichment claim, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed that, in general, Arkansas does not allow an unjust enrichment claim when the parties have a contract. The court noted, however, that this general rule has many exceptions. The court referred to the draft “Performance of Disputed Obligation” section of Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, which provides the following:
If one party to a contract demands from the other a performance that is not in fact due by the terms of their agreement, the party on whom the demand is made may render such performance under protest or with reservation of rights, preserving a claim in restitution to recover the value of the benefit conferred in excess of the recipient’s contractual entitlement.
If the parties have an enforceable contract that fully addresses a subject, they must follow the terms of the contract in resolving any dispute. The contract will not bar an unjust enrichment claim, however, if (1) the contract fails on some basis, (2) the contract does not fully address a subject, or (3) disputed performance is compelled under protest.
Here, the parties’ contract required QHC to provide some call rotation: “[Dr. Archer] shall provide on-call coverage on a rotating basis and shall be on call as shall be determined from time to time by agreement between [QHC] and [Dr. Archer].” The contract did not fully address, however, how much on-call coverage was required of Dr. Archer. Further, any time he was on call, Dr. Archer was required to respond within a reasonable period of time, usually thirty minutes, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) and QHG guidelines. Failure to comply with EMTALA or the QHG guidelines would have resulted in fines or suspension of medical privileges. The court noted that Dr. Archer overperformed for good reasons and under protest. The court then reversed the directed verdict and remanded the case for trial on the merits.
