Opinion ID: 200100
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tortious Interference with Business Advantage

Text: 103 The elements of tortious interference with business advantage are: 104 (1) a business relationship or contemplated contract of economic benefit; 105 (2) the defendant's knowledge of such relationship; 106 (3) the defendant's interference with the relationship through improper motive or means; and, 107 (4) the plaintiff's loss of advantage as a direct result of the defendant's conduct. 108 Brown v. Armstrong, 957 F.Supp. 1293, 1304-05 (D.Mass.1997), aff'd, 129 F.3d 1252 (1st Cir.1997) (table opinion). 109 Dr. Singh argues that eight pages of his deposition testimony demonstrated that he suffered a substantial loss of his patient base because of Blue Cross's peer review actions. This deposition testimony begins with Dr. Singh's incorrect assertion that I know for sure my panel was frozen. The RAC only recommended that Dr. Singh's panel be frozen; it never actually took this step. Dr. Singh then asserts that his name was not on a Blue Cross directory, that his patients (and prospective patients) noticed this, that Blue Cross's investigation of him became public knowledge, and that patients started leaving (or failing to sign up for) his practice. Yet Dr. Singh does not name a single member of the public to whom the investigation was disclosed. He repeatedly evaded direct questions on whether anyone actually told him that Blue Cross disclosed the investigation to them. Assuming arguendo that the investigation actually was disclosed to individuals outside of Blue Cross, Dr. Singh does not even estimate how many patients actually left or avoided his practice on account of it. We cannot improve on the district court's evaluation of the evidence: 110 Singh may not speculate about future business relationships when alleging this tort; instead, only a probable future business relationship anticipating a reasonable expectancy of financial benefit suffices. Because Singh has presented no evidence of a specific business relationship that was interfered with by Blue Cross, summary judgment is granted for Blue Cross. 111 Singh, 182 F.Supp.2d at 178 (citation omitted) (quoting Brown, 957 F.Supp. at 1305). The grant of summary judgment was correct.