ipl-logo

Jennings V. Ssm Health Care Case Summary

1212 Words5 Pages

In my case, Anthony W. Jennings v. SSM Health Care St. Louis (SSM), the employer, SSM Health Care St. Louis, offered to pay a severance, a payment for resigning, to their physicians, who attended a meaning in which is when the information was announced, that who ever would leave the company would be paid. Dr. Jennings then left the company expecting his pay; SSM never payed the severance. On July 27, 2010, Dr. Jennings then sues the company with a seven-count petition: which where “(1) a breach of his employment agreement; (2) a breach of SSM's written severance policy; (3) a breach of a unilateral verbal severance contract; (4) promissory estoppel; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraudulent misrepresentation; and (7) negligent misrepresentation" (1). Jennings wins the trial, but SSM appeals explaining to the appellate court to …show more content…

The court said that “Dr. Jennings performed his obligations under the employment agreement” and that Jennings followed through with good faith that he would receive his severance; SSM did not follow through with their agreement, which is fraud. SSM argued that they did not because Jennings “failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the employment agreement included an integration clause. That integration clause, SSM contended, effectively sealed the contract at the time of its signing and constituted the entire agreement of the parties.” By Jennings failing to state a claim, which was a clause in the contract, SSM had the right to not give his severance. The appellant court agreed to SSM’s point. The court back up their reasoning by explaining that in a written contract it “is presumed to be "the final memorial of the parties' agreement” and that the clause in the contract must be followed to complete Jennings’ side of the contract. The court agreed with

Open Document