Provider hereby agrees to comply with all the terms and conditions of that contract to the extent that they directly or indirectly bear upon the subject matter of this Agreement. Appellants attributed the termination to Wieland's dissatisfaction with their patient-visit averages, i.e., the fact that they saw patients for more visits than NSI allowed. Wieland maintains that appellants were at-will employees who could be terminated without cause. Appellants brought this action contesting their at-will status and claiming restraint of trade and antitrust violations, tortious interference, fraud and misrepresentation, breach of contract, and RICO violations. Respondents were granted summary judgment and awarded certain fees and costs.
Appellants challenge both the judgment and the award.
In reviewing summary judgments, this court asks whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether there was an error in the application of the law. Pine River, however, is readily distinguishable. Although their agreements with respondents left appellants free to engage in private practice or to work for other network providers, appellants argue that by limiting the number of visits per patient, respondents imposed an anticompetitive restriction on their output and denied their patients the treatment they sought. Here also, there is no indication respondents attempted anything resembling a group boycott of appellants, and appellants are explicitly permitted to supply their services to competitors or to engage in private practice. We conclude that appellants failed to make either an antitrust claim or a restraint of trade claim.