Court Opinion

ID: 9565595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:24:10.867433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:46.578161
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
BISTLINE, Justice.
A rehearing was granted on the following two issues: (1) whether Helen Kolouch should be found tortiously liable for the harm she caused; and (2) whether prejudgment interest was properly awarded. On both issues we continue to adhere to our original decision.1
With respect to the first issue, the plaintiffs argue first that Count Three of their Second Amended Complaint adequately alleges that Kolouch committed a tort against them, and, second, that this tort also involved the intentional interference of contractual relationships between the plaintiffs and their patients.
Plaintiffs cite to paragraph two of Count Three of their Second Amended Complaint to support their first argument. That paragraph does state that the defendants did willfully commit the actions in question in order to harass the plaintiffs. It further states that such acts justify an award of punitive damages, and caused “severe strain in plaintiffs’ relations with certain patients____” Paragraph three next states that such conduct also caused them to suffer severe emotional distress. Nevertheless, the complaint simply does not allege the elements of the tort they argue Kolouch committed, which we will discuss briefly. First, however, we note that it seems of little significance whether the tort was adequately alleged because we do not see that the requisite elements of such an alleged tort were proved.
Barlow v. International Harvester Co., 95 Idaho 881, 893, 522 P.2d 1102, 1114 (1974), set down the elements which necessarily must be proved to sustain a claim of tortious interference with contractual relationships:
(a) the existence of a contract;
(b) knowledge of the contract on the part of the defendant;
(c) intentional interference causing a breach of the contract; and
(d) injury to the plaintiff resulting from the breach. (Emphasis added.)
In this case, the trial court held that there was no proof establishing any shortage of plaintiffs’ accounts receivable. Thus, there is no evidence that Kolouch’s actions allowed or caused any patient to breach the contractual obligation to pay the doctors. From that follows that there is no proof that the plaintiffs suffered any monetary loss resulting from a patient’s nonpayment. The only damages found by the district court all related to the reconstruction costs plaintiffs incurred in reconstructing their billing records. Such damages are unrelated to a claim for damages which flowed from any nonpayment of medical bills, whether nonpayment was established or was not. Emotional distress resulting from severe strain in the doctor/patient *820relationship, even accepting that it was established, is not recoverable. Brown v. Fritz, 108 Idaho 357, 699 P.2d 1371 (1985).
With respect to the second issue, we are not persuaded to retreat from our earlier holding: damages here were “definitely ascertainable,” and, therefore, entitled to the accrual of prejudgment interest.
DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES and HUNTLEY, JJ., concur.
SHEPARD, J., continues to adhere to his views, concurring in part and dissenting in part, in the original opinion.

. For further clarification, however, we have revised footnote 2 on page 516 of our original opinion.