Court Opinion

ID: 9759271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:10:37.032286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:00.642504
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would hold that Manske-Sheffield is not entitled to a permanent injunction because they have not proven “the absence of an adequate and realistically complete remedy at law.” It was their burden to prove the absence of a remedy at law, not the burden of Isuani to prove a remedy did exist. Both the majority and Manske-Sheffield place emphasis and reliance upon the fact that Manske-Sheffield had talked or “negotiated” with Park Place Hospital about a contract to provide radiology services. They use this fact to show that Manske-Sheffield had a business interest to protect. In their brief Manske-Sheffield makes the statement, without any support in the record, that it is “difficult or impossible to place a monetary value on this interest [the pursuit of the Park Place contract] to Manske-Sheffield.” Once again, there is nothing in the record, not even the opinion of a Manske-Sheffield radiologist, that Isuani’s interference with a Park Place contract is incapable of being assigned a monetary value. This conclusion simply defies common sense.. What group of trained professionals would consider a contract without having some projection of the potential profits?
The evidence showed that Manske-Shef-field received its income from contracts and/or doctor referrals. If, after he left the group, Isuani diverted some of those contracts or referrals, then that lost income is capable of being calculated and Isuani *609could face a suit for damages.1 See Hogg v. Professional Pathology Associates, 598 S.W.2d 328 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, writ dism’d).
The trial court should have allowed Isua-ni to practice radiology at Park Place Hospital if he so desired. Then Manske-Shef-field could have sued Isuani and could have collected whatever monetary damages, if any, they proved they had lost. The injustice of the trial court’s ruling and the majority’s affirmance is that Dr. Isuani has been deprived of the right to practice radiology at a place where Manske-Sheffield admittedly was not practicing radiology and did not prove they were likely to do so. I respectfully dissent.

. Apparently the trial court had no difficulty in assigning a value of $500,000 to the Park Place "business interest" since that was the amount of supersedeas bond required of Isuani.