Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority
249 S.W. 3d 346, 2008 WL 375759, 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 103 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court order that is vague, ambiguous, or susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation cannot support a finding of civil contempt for its alleged violation. To be enforceable through contempt, an order must be clear, specific, and unambiguous, leaving no reasonable basis for doubt regarding its meaning.
Facts:
- Dr. Alexander A. Stratienko and Dr. Van Stephen Monroe, two cardiologists at Erlanger Hospital, were involved in a physical altercation.
- The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority summarily suspended Dr. Stratienko's staff privileges based on a report that he had struck Dr. Monroe.
- Dr. Stratienko retained attorneys John P. Konvalinka and Jennifer H. Lawrence to contest his suspension.
- During the dispute over his suspension, Dr. Stratienko's attorneys sought discovery of information concerning Dr. Monroe's credentials.
- The Hospital Authority refused to produce the information, asserting it was protected by the Tennessee Peer Review Law.
- This discovery dispute led to an interlocutory appeal, during which the Court of Appeals issued an order staying '[a]ll proceedings below.'
- While the stay was in effect, Mr. Konvalinka requested numerous hospital records under Tennessee's public records statutes.
- After the Hospital Authority did not respond, Mr. Konvalinka, represented by Ms. Lawrence, filed a separate lawsuit in his own name in a different court to compel production of the records.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Stratienko sued the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (a trial court) over the suspension of his medical privileges.
- A discovery dispute arose, and the trial court denied Dr. Stratienko's motion to compel the production of records but granted permission for an interlocutory appeal.
- The Tennessee Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) granted the appeal and issued an order staying 'all proceedings below.'
- While the appeal was pending, Dr. Stratienko's attorney, John P. Konvalinka, filed a new public records lawsuit against the Hospital Authority in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County (a different trial court).
- The Hospital Authority filed a motion in the Court of Appeals to hold attorneys Konvalinka and Lawrence in contempt for violating the stay order.
- The Court of Appeals found the attorneys in direct civil contempt and ordered them to pay the Hospital Authority's attorney's fees.
- Attorneys Konvalinka and Lawrence (appellants) were granted permission to appeal the contempt finding to the Supreme Court of Tennessee (the state's highest court), with the Hospital Authority acting as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's act of filing a new, separate public records lawsuit violate a court's order staying 'all proceedings below' in a pending interlocutory appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - William C. Koch, Jr., J.
No. The attorney's act of filing a new public records lawsuit does not violate the stay order because the order's language, 'all proceedings below,' was not sufficiently clear, specific, and unambiguous to prohibit filing a separate legal action. Civil contempt requires the willful violation of a clear and unambiguous order. The phrase 'proceedings below' is reasonably interpreted to apply only to the specific case from which the appeal was taken and its related administrative hearings, not to new, independent lawsuits filed in a different court under a different statute. Because the order was susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that permitted the filing of the public records suit, the attorneys' actions cannot be deemed a willful violation. Any ambiguity in an order alleged to have been violated must be interpreted in favor of the person facing the contempt charge.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high jurisdictional and due process standard for civil contempt, underscoring that court orders must be exceptionally precise to be enforceable through contempt sanctions. It clarifies that general stay orders, such as 'all proceedings below,' are likely to be narrowly construed and may not prevent parties from pursuing related claims in separate, independent legal actions. The case also highlights the potential for litigants to use public records statutes as an alternative to the more restrictive rules of civil discovery when suing government entities, a strategic consideration that may require further judicial or legislative clarification in the future.
Unlock the full brief for Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority