finding that there was no implied contract sufficient to rebut presumption of employment at will because staff privileges and hospital employment are distinct
How later courts described this case
- finding that there was no implied contract sufficient to rebut presumption of employment at will because staff privileges and hospital employment are distinct
- reversed on other grounds 569 A.2d 346 (Pa. 1990)
- "[I]f we were to allow a broad application of the public policy exception, the at-will employment doctrine would almost certainly be dismembered by individual judicial notions of what constitutes the public weal."
- tort elements well settled but conduct not outrageous and insufficient competent medical evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McEWEN, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
The issues which confront this Court in this appeal are of such importance and difficulty that unanimity of view is understandably impossible. I can, however, afford to be succinct since my esteemed colleagues have so carefully and thoughtfully analyzed these complex and urgent issues. I am compelled to an expression, nonetheless, since I share the view of Judge Cavanaugh that judgment n.o.v. should have been entered on the promissory estoppel claim, while joining the opinion of President Judge Cirillo on all other issues.