United States v. Hayes
633 F.Supp. 1183 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutorily mandated treble damages provision in a government scholarship-for-service contract is an enforceable liquidated damages clause, not an unenforceable penalty, when the actual damages resulting from the breach are uncertain and difficult to measure.
Facts:
- In June 1978, the defendant, a medical student, applied for a scholarship from the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) to fund her medical education at Tufts University.
- In her application, the defendant stated she intended to specialize in family medicine and work in a rural area.
- The defendant was awarded scholarship funds for two academic years, creating a contractual obligation for her to perform a corresponding period of service in the NHSC.
- After medical school, the defendant was granted a deferment to complete a three-year residency in internal medicine.
- During her residency, the defendant switched her specialty to dermatology and abandoned her internal medicine training.
- The defendant's request to fulfill her service obligation as a dermatologist was denied by the NHSC.
- The defendant subsequently failed to participate in the NHSC placement process and did not perform her service obligation under the scholarship contract.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 25, 1985, the United States filed a lawsuit against the defendant in U.S. District Court to recover damages for breach of contract.
- The defendant admitted to breaching the contract but disputed the validity of the treble damages provision, arguing it was an unenforceable penalty.
- The United States moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in its favor without a full trial.
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 the treble damages provision in the National Health Service Corps scholarship program, mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 254o, constitute an unenforceable penalty, or is it a valid liquidated damages clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Erwin, District Judge
No. The treble damages provision is a valid and enforceable liquidated damages clause, not an unenforceable penalty. Courts generally enforce liquidated damages clauses when they are fair and reasonable attempts to fix just compensation for an anticipated loss, particularly when damages are uncertain or unmeasurable at the time of contracting. The purpose of the NHSC Scholarship Program was not merely to subsidize education but to address the geographic maldistribution of health professionals. The damages to the government and the underserved community from the loss of a physician's services are virtually impossible to calculate, as they depend on numerous unknowable factors like a physician's skill, specialty, and dedication. Therefore, the statutory formula, of which the defendant had notice, is a reasonable attempt by Congress to set just compensation for the breach and is not a penalty.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that statutorily mandated damages provisions in government contracts serving a significant public policy purpose are afforded great deference by the courts. It establishes that the inherent difficulty in quantifying the societal loss from a lack of medical services in underserved areas is a sufficient basis to uphold what might otherwise appear to be a punitive damages clause. This ruling serves as a strong deterrent for participants in similar scholarship-for-service programs, signaling that the financial consequences of a breach are not subject to judicial mitigation based on common law penalty principles and will be strictly enforced as legislated.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Hayes