DePape v. Trinity Health Sys. - 242 F. Supp. 2d 585 (N.D. Iowa 2003)

Rule:

In the context of promissory estoppel, the parties' mutual agreement upon a goal does not give rise to a clear and definite promise.

Facts:

The consulting firm recruited the plaintiff Canadian doctor to fill a vacancy with the medical practice in Iowa. The medical practice and the doctor entered into a five-year employment agreement. The medical practice engaged the service of the law firm to assist the doctor in obtaining a visa for lawful entry and permission to work in the United States. When the doctor attempted to cross the New York border into the United States, he was denied entry into the United States. The doctor filed suit against the defendant consulting firm and the defendant medical practice, alleging that the defendants were liable because they promised to secure governmental permission for him to practice medicine in the United States and to make arrangements for that permission in a correct, legal, and appropriate manner. Defendants filed a third-party action against third party-defendant law firm, alleging legal malpractice, and assuming liability, sought contribution and indemnification. The doctor amended his complaint to assert a legal malpractice claim against the law firm.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was the doctor entitled to recover damages from defendant consulting firm and defendant medical practice? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court found that the law firm was extraordinarily negligent in failing to inform and communicate with the doctor concerning his immigration and in counseling him to perpetrate a fraud on the INS in order to gain entry to the United States. The court held that the doctor was entitled to recover damages from the law firm for his lost income and emotional distress. However, there was no basis to hold the consulting firm or medical practice liable for damages. According to the court, the hope and expectation of securing the proper immigration documentation simply did not rise to the level of a "clear and definite promise" necessary to support a claim of promissory estoppel. The court also held that the doctor's breach of contract claim failed because the medical practice was not at fault for causing the break-down of the doctor's immigration process.