Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Doctor's Hospital v. Vilar, 94-1834 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 94-1834 Visitors: 28
Filed: Jan. 26, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: January 26, 1995 NOT FOR PUBLICATION, ___________________ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1834 IN RE DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC., Appellant, v. RAMON VILAR, Appellee. On review, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's allowance of both claims.
USCA1 Opinion









January 26, 1995
NOT FOR PUBLICATION ___________________

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 94-1834

IN RE DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

RAMON VILAR,

Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________

Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________

and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________

____________________

Carlos Batista-Jimenez with whom Charles A. Cuprill-Hernandez was _______________________ ____________________________
on brief for appellant.
Igor J. Dominguez with whom Igor J. Dominguez Law Offices was on _________________ _____________________________
brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________


















Per Curiam. In July 1989, Doctor's Hospital (the ___________

"Hospital") filed a chapter 11 petition in the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

Thereafter, the Hospital continued to operate as debtor-in-

possession. The following year the Hospital hired Ramon

Vilar to serve as its Hospital Administrator. Vilar signed a

five-year employment contract with the Hospital on December

14, 1990. Under the contract, Vilar was given "complete

autonomy" in the day-to-day operation of the hospital.

By October 1991, the Hospital desperately needed funds

in order to continue operating. To secure financing, the

Hospital entered into a court-approved agreement with Medicos

Especializados y de Emergencias, Inc. ("Medicos") and

Medicos' President, Dr. Roberto Kutcher Olivio. Under the

agreement, Medicos and Kutcher acquired 51 percent of the

Hospital's capital stock; and Medicos and Kutcher assumed

responsibility for administering and operating the Hospital.

The agreement took effect on November 1, 1991, and on

November 4, 1991, Kutcher informed Vilar that his contract

with the Hospital was terminated.

Vilar then filed with the bankruptcy court an

application for payment of administrative expenses, including

expenses for severance pay and vacation pay, pursuant to 11

U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(A). Administrative expenses are "the

actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the



-2- -2-













estate, including wages, salaries, or commissions for

services rendered after the commencement of the case". Id. ___

Severance and vacation pay, incident to post-petition

employment, are widely considered to be administrative

expenses. See, e.g., Matter of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., ___ ____ _______________________________________

Inc., 5 B.R. 549, 552 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. 1980). The Bankruptcy ____

Code, 11 U.S.C. 507(a)(1), assigns first-priority status to

section 503(b) expenses to encourage third parties to supply

those goods and services necessary to rehabilitate the

debtor's business. See, e.g., In re Mammoth Mart, Inc., 536 ___ ____ _________________________

F.2d 950 (1st Cir. 1976).

Clause 4(a) of the contract allowed Vilar four weeks of

compensated vacation time for each year that the contract was

in effect. Vilar based his claim for severance pay on clause

13 of his employment contract with the Hospital, which

states:

The Board may, in its discretion, terminate Vilar's
duties as Administrator of the Hospital. Such
action will require a majority vote of the Board
and will become effective when such vote is taken.
After such termination, all rights, duties and
obligations of both parties shall cease except that
Hospital will continue to pay Vilar his then
monthly salary of (sic) for the month in which his
duties were terminated and for six (6) consecutive
months thereafter, as agreed upon termination
payment.

In June 1992 the bankruptcy court heard testimony

concerning Vilar's application for payment of administrative

expenses. The Hospital objected to the application, arguing



-3- -3-













that it did not have to pay Vilar anything because he had

been terminated for cause. According to the Hospital, Vilar

had breached the contract because he had failed to perform

his duties as Administrator and because he was insubordinate

and negligent. Vilar maintained that he satisfactorily

performed all of his obligations under the contract.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the bankruptcy court

stated that "[t]he evidence . . . shows that the [Hospital's]

board of directors may have had cause to terminate the

employment contract but opted not to do so." The court found

that Medicos and Kutcher had terminated Vilar with the

approval of the Hospital's board of directors and that the

termination had triggered Clause 13, thereby giving Vilar a

valid claim for severance pay. However, the court concluded

that the claim for severance pay, although allowed as an

unsecured claim, was not entitled to priority status because

clause 13 did not benefit the estate. The bankruptcy court

did find that Vilar was due vacation pay as an administrative

priority.

On review, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy

court's allowance of both claims. The district court

specifically endorsed the finding of the bankruptcy court

that the dismissal had not been made for cause. The district

court also upheld the bankruptcy court's holding that the

claim for vacation pay was an administrative expense, but the



-4- -4-













district court reversed with respect to severance pay,

concluding that it too was an administrative expense entitled

to priority.

On appeal, the Hospital disputes that Vilar has a valid

claim to severance and vacation pay. The Hospital's argument

is simple: it treats the bankruptcy court's reference to

cause--that the Hospital "may have had cause" to terminate

Vilar--as a determination that Vilar did breach his contract.

But "may have" and "did" are two different things. Even if a

material breach by Vilar would excuse the Hospital from

paying severance or vacation pay, there is no such finding of

cause here.

The bankruptcy judge seems to have treated the Hospital

as having waived any such claim of breach by failing to

assert, when it fired Vilar, that it was doing so because of

Vilar's misconduct. Whether the bankruptcy judge was right

or wrong on this issue of waiver is not before us because the

Hospital offers no argument to show that he was wrong. Why

the Hospital has chosen to argue the case on a ground refuted

by the bankruptcy court's own order is a complete mystery.

The Hospital also attacks the priority status afforded

to the vacation and severance claims, but again its principal

ground is the mistaken assumption that the Hospital was found

to have cause to terminate the contract. Indeed, the

Hospital admits that most courts that have considered



-5- -5-













severance pay claims in bankruptcy have held that they

comprise an administrative expense entitled to priority. The

reason, as the Hospital states, is that the severance pay

commitment is a cost of carrying on the business. E.g., In ____ __

re Golden Distributors, Ltd., 134 B.R. 760 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. _____________________________

1991). The only disagreement, not presented here, arises

where the contract was made prior to bankruptcy. E.g., id. ____ ___

The closest that the Hospital comes to raising a

colorable issue on appeal is to defend, in a couple of

sentences, the bankruptcy court's initial determination that

the severance pay should not be given a priority. The

reason, says the Hospital, is that the severance pay is not

linked to the services provided post petition or to the

length of employment but was provided in compensation for the

termination of the contract.

The short answer is that the severance provision was a

contracted for employment benefit, just like salary or

vacation pay, promised in exchange for Vilar's services. _________________

Vilar earned it by providing post-petition services (or at

least there is no finding to the contrary), and the

commitment to pay severance, together with other commitments,

benefited the estate by inducing Vilar to act as the

Hospital's administrator. In these circumstances, severance

pay falls squarely within the rationale for allowing a





-6- -6-













priority. See generally In re Mammoth Mart, Inc., 536 F.2d _____________ ________________________

at 954.

Affirmed. ________















































-7- -7-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer