Opinion ID: 2388306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Application to the Present Facts

Text: We must now apply the foregoing principles to the facts presented in this appeal. The record reveals that plaintiff, the former head of the Radiology Department at the Scott County Hospital, filed suit on October 27, 1988, alleging that the Defendant physicians had tortiously interfered with his employment at the hospital. The complaint alleged that Plaintiff was terminated from his position as the head of the Radiology Department as a result of Defendants' intentional and malicious interference with his employment without justification or privilege by exerting influence over the hospital's administration through their use of economic pressures, by interfering with employee evaluations, performance, scheduling, and discipline. Plaintiff further alleged that as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' tortious interference with [his] employment, [he] has suffered lost wages, significant benefits, and has further sustained great embarrassment and humiliation within [the] community. The Defendants filed an answer denying the allegations and asserted the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In October, 1989, approximately one year after the complaint was filed, Defendants served interrogatories upon the Plaintiff seeking to discover the details supporting the allegations contained in the complaint. The interrogatories were never answered by the Plaintiff and the Defendants never filed a motion to compel. Other than the Defendants' interrogatories, neither side undertook any formal discovery. In June, 1990, approximately eight months after the interrogatories were served, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The motion was accompanied by a brief but without affidavits or other supporting material. Approximately five months later, on November 27, 1990, the day the motion was argued, Plaintiff filed his affidavit in opposition to the motion. [8] The trial court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment because there was no material issue of fact. The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that the Defendants sustained their burden by interrogatories directed to the Plaintiff who chose not to respond thereto, requiring the ultimate conclusion that there was no evidence to support his complaint. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse. The grant of summary judgment to the Defendants was improper. Plaintiff, as the nonmoving party, set forth specific facts in paragraphs 6 through 9 of his affidavit filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Those allegations, if taken as true, create genuine issues of material fact. The Defendants, in their brief filed in support of their motion for summary judgment, state that the events/facts set forth in paragraphs 6 through 9 of the Plaintiff's affidavit if they took place, which has not been proven, were necessary and proper and done within the course and scope of [the Defendants'] employment. The parties' basic disagreement as to whether these incidents even occurred at all raises genuine issues of material fact that the trier of fact must legitimately resolve. Although the Plaintiff's affidavit does not provide specific dates of these occurrences or verbatim quotes from the Defendants, his assertions are specific enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment, particularly in view of the fact that the Defendants submitted no countervailing affidavits, but simply denied that the alleged events ever even occurred. The Plaintiff is not required to prove his entire case by a preponderance of the evidence at the summary judgment stage. He need only raise genuine issues of material fact, making summary judgment inappropriate. Nothing more is required of the Plaintiff as the nonmoving party. In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the courts below are reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs are adjudged against the Defendants. REID, C.J., and O'BRIEN, DAUGHTREY and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.