THE lawsuit filed by Dr. Francois Claassens and Dr. James Toskas against Rota Health Center and the Commonwealth Healthcare Corp. over compensation for work performed beyond their normal schedules was remanded by the CNMI Supreme Court to the trial court for further proceedings.
Chief Justice Alexandro Castro, Associate Justice Perry Inos, and Justice Pro Tempore Timothy Bellas reversed the May 2018 ruling of Judge Joseph N. Camacho who dismissed the lawsuit.
The judge said many of the documents that purportedly supported the doctors’ claims were unsigned while others were signed by one or both doctors.
The doctors wanted to be compensated for work performed beyond their normal work schedules amounting to $635,187.
Following Judge Camacho’s ruling, they appealed to the local high court.
In their ruling, the justices said the “allegations in the complaint could be developed and supported with evidence at a later stage in litigation, and dismissing the claims…was premature.”
According to the justices, “If the case had proceeded to discovery, the doctors would have been afforded an opportunity to defend the validity and enforceability of the contracts…. One of the signatories to the contract was the then-governor. Later, when the governor became CHCC’s chief executive officer, he informed the doctors that CHCC would honor the accumulated leave through March 9, 2012, but the arrangement would no longer continue. Whether the hours claimed were under the overtime-exempt contracts or locum coverage is a question of fact requiring evidentiary support. The same is true as to whether…addenda were attached to the employment contracts when routed between government entities for approval. If so attached, could the doctors argue that the addenda constituted a contractual modification agreed upon by the parties? At this pleading stage, the [trial] court should have construed these factual questions in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs,” the justices added.
“We are left with the sense that the complaint alleged facts sufficient to state the elements of a contract and a breach thereof. The allegations may need further support to justify a finding that there was a breach, but that is not necessary at the motion to dismiss stage. Thus, the [trial] court erred in dismissing the breach of contract claim,” the justices said.
Attorneys Stephen J. Nutting and Tiberius Mocanu represent the doctors while Assistant Attorney General Christopher Timmons appeared for the government.
