Radiology Servs. v. Hall

R adiology SeRviceS, P.c., aPPellant, v.
K atheRine RounSboRg hall , aPPellee .
780 N.W.2d 17
Filed March 12, 2010. 	No. S-09-171.
1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a summary judgment, the
court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom
the judgment was granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable infer-
ences deducible from the evidence.
2. Malpractice: Attorney and Client: Negligence: Proof: Proximate Cause:
Damages. In a civil action for legal malpractice, a plaintiff alleging profes-
sional negligence on the part of an attorney must prove three elements: (1) the
attorney’s employment, (2) the attorney’s neglect of a reasonable duty, and (3)
that such negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss (damages)
to the client.
3. Malpractice: Attorney and Client. In a legal malpractice action, the required
standard of conduct is that the attorney exercise such skill, diligence, and knowl-
edge as that commonly possessed by attorneys acting in similar circumstances.
4. ____: ____. Although the general standard of an attorney’s conduct is established
by law, the question of what an attorney’s specific conduct should be in a particu-
lar case and whether an attorney’s conduct fell below that specific standard is a
question of fact.
5. Negligence: Proximate Cause: Words and Phrases. A proximate cause is a
cause that produces a result in a natural and continuous sequence and without
which the result would not have occurred.
6. Negligence: Proximate Cause: Proof. To establish proximate cause, the plaintiff
must meet three basic requirements: (1) Without the negligent action, the injury
would not have occurred, commonly known as the “but for” rule; (2) the injury
was a natural and probable result of the negligence; and (3) there was no efficient
intervening cause.
Appeal from the District Court for Lincoln County: J ohn P.
icenogle, Judge. Affirmed.
Michael F. Coyle, David J. Stubstad, and Sherman P. Willis,
of Fraser Stryker, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
William R. Johnson, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P.,
and Raymond E. Walden, of Walden Law Office, for appellee.
heavican, 	c.J., 	WRight, 	connolly, 	geRRaRd, 	StePhan,
MccoRMacK, and M illeR-leRMan, JJ.
RADIOLOgy SERvS. v. hALL 	553
Cite as 279 Neb. 553
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:48 AM CST

WRight, J.
I. NATURE OF CASE
The Lincoln County District Court granted summary judg-
ment in favor of Katherine Rounsborg hall and dismissed the
complaint of Radiology Services, P.C. The complaint alleged
that hall, an attorney, committed professional negligence and
disseminated trade secrets during and after her legal represen-
tation of Radiology Services. We affirm.
II. SCOPE OF REvIEW
[1] In reviewing a summary judgment, the court views the
evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom
the judgment was granted and gives such party the benefit of
all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Bamford
v. Bamford, Inc., ante p. 259, 777 N.W.2d 573 (2010).
III. FACTS
Radiology Services filed a complaint against hall alleging
that she simultaneously represented Radiology Services and
her father, Dr. gerald Rounsborg, regarding his retirement;
assisted Rounsborg in competing with Radiology Services
after his retirement; disclosed Radiology Services’ confidential
and proprietary information; and violated Nebraska’s Trade
Secrets Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-501 et seq. (Reissue 2008).
hall moved for summary judgment. The district court for
Lincoln County found that there were no material facts in
dispute and that the facts did not support Radiology Services’
alleged causes of action and theories of recovery. It granted
hall’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
Radiology Services appeals.
Radiology Services provides radiology services to hospitals,
clinics, and other medical facilities in Nebraska and Kansas.
Its principal place of business is North Platte, Nebraska.
Rounsborg is a radiologist and former employee of Radiology
Services. he was employed with the group from 1979 to
March 15, 2004, and was president of the group in 2003.
his daughter, hall, is an attorney licensed to practice law in
Nebraska. She became the corporate attorney for Radiology
Services in 1995.
554 	279 NEbRASKA REPORTS

1. eMPloyMent teRMination agReeMent R eviSed
During 	her 	representation 	of 	Radiology 	Services, 	hall
reviewed and revised Radiology Services’ employment ter-
mination agreement. In 1997, at Radiology Services’ request,
she drafted the “Employment Termination Agreement Revised”
(ETAR). Paragraph 1.4(c) provided:
An EMPLOyEE electing to receive benefits or compensa-
tion under this Agreement agrees to refrain for a period
of one year following the date of termination from work-
ing for or soliciting work from the CORPORATION’s
then existing hospital clients or accounts with whom
the 	EMPLOyEE 	actually 	did 	business 	or 	had 	per-
sonal contact.
The original agreement specified that employees must be
employed by the corporation for 10 years before being eligible
for deferred compensation pursuant to the agreement. When
the ETAR was drafted, Dr. Warren Orr, the founder of the
corporation in the late 1970’s, was automatically eligible for
deferred compensation benefits, and Rounsborg had already
been an employee for more than 10 years and would have been
eligible under the original agreement. The ETAR provided that
he was eligible for benefits as of April 1, 1989. The ETAR also
specified that Dr. Kan Wu, who became an employee in 1992,
would be eligible as of August 1, 2002. Drs. Tamara hlavaty,
Sam Liu, and David hatch all became full-time Radiology
Services employees in 1998 or later.
2. albeRt RobinSon’S eMPloyMent agReeMent
In March 1998, hall drafted an employment agreement
for Albert Robinson, a radiology technician with Radiology
Services. The agreement included a 1-year noncompete clause.
hall sent it to Radiology Services and suggested that Radiology
Services contact her with changes so the agreement could be
signed by all parties. She followed up with this request on May
28 and on January 22 and April 1, 1999, indicating that she
had not heard back regarding the agreement and asking for a
signed copy.
In May 1999, at the request of Radiology Services, hall
sent Radiology Services a list of documents that had not been
RADIOLOgy SERvS. v. hALL 	555
Cite as 279 Neb. 553

signed or returned to her. Robinson’s employment agreement
was on this list. hall advised that she did not have copies of the
documents but understood that all of the unreturned documents
had been signed. however, Robinson testified that he never saw
the employment agreement and never executed it. Robinson
resigned on January 16, 2004, and went to work as the director
of marketing for great Plains Radiology, P.C.
3. RounSboRg’S R etiReMent P lanS
Orr retired from Radiology Services on January 31, 2002.
Rounsborg gave written notice to Radiology Services in January
2003 that he intended to retire on or about July 1, 2005, and
that he was giving advance notice to give Radiology Services
adequate time to plan for his departure and recruit a replace-
ment if necessary.
In late 2003, Rounsborg hired Sam Mazzuca to evalu-
ate Radiology Services. As part of the evaluation, Mazzuca
talked with the other radiologists in the group and concluded
that Rounsborg might have an alcohol problem. Mazzuca met
with hall, one of Rounsborg’s sons, and two of Rounsborg’s
friends. Mazzuca expressed his concerns about Rounsborg’s
performance, which included memory loss, depression, and an
alcohol problem.
Mazzuca asked hall to participate in a discussion of these
problems with Rounsborg. On December 1, 2003, hall went
with Mazzuca to meet Rounsborg to discuss Mazzuca’s con-
cerns. Mazzuca told Rounsborg that Radiology Services wanted
him to be evaluated and take a 90-day disability leave. After
the 90 days, Rounsborg could go back to work if he complied
with any recommendations in the evaluation.
Rounsborg did not agree that he had a problem or with
the disability status and continued to work his scheduled
hours. because he believed the other radiologists at Radiology
Services were determined that he not return to work, Rounsborg
agreed to take what he characterized as a leave of absence with
pay from December 15, 2003, through March 15, 2004, and
to obtain an alcohol assessment. During this time, Radiology
Services paid him $38,194.58.
556 	279 NEbRASKA REPORTS

On December 3, 2003, hall drafted an agreement between
Rounsborg and Radiology Services that gave Rounsborg the
option to retire on March 15, 2004. The agreement ended
with a disclaimer that hall was Rounsborg’s daughter and that
Radiology Services had ample opportunity to seek counsel
from another source. Neither party executed this agreement.
On December 10, 2003, Wu notified hall that Radiology
Services was discontinuing its relationship with her and seek-
ing alternative counsel to avoid the appearance of a conflict
of interest.
At a meeting of Radiology Services’ board on January 15,
2004, the board removed Rounsborg as an officer of the corpo-
ration and elected Wu to serve as president. It also confirmed
the discharge of hall as the corporation’s attorney. Rounsborg
resolved to leave Radiology Services after the January 15 cor-
porate meeting. The next day, he notified Wu of his intention
to retire as of March 15.
great Plains Radiology subsequently contacted Rounsborg
regarding the possibility of his working with them as an inde-
pendent contractor. Rounsborg advised great Plains Radiology
of his competition restrictions pursuant to the ETAR, including
that he agreed to refrain from working for or soliciting work
from Radiology Services’ clients with whom he had contact.
he sent great Plains Radiology a list of the hospitals that fell
under this agreement.
hall then assisted Rounsborg in setting up a corporation
through which he could work as an independent contractor.
Despite these arrangements, Rounsborg never worked for great
Plains Radiology or any other radiology group after he retired
from Radiology Services.
4. letteRS to clientS
On December 17, 2003, Rounsborg sent letters to Radiology
Services’ clients. The letter stated that Radiology Services had
hired a consultant and requested a summary of the client’s
experience 	with 	Radiology 	Services. 	Rounsborg 	requested
feedback and complaints, particularly with regard to his work.
he asked that responses to the survey be returned to him at his
RADIOLOgy SERvS. v. hALL 	557
Cite as 279 Neb. 553

home address. hall provided Rounsborg with the addresses of
the clients.
Following the clients’ receipt of the letters, Radiology
Services and a hospital in North Platte received several tele-
phone calls from clients with questions concerning the receipt
of the letters. Wu believed Radiology Services lost three
clients as a result of the letters but admitted he did not have
knowledge of anything that linked the loss of the clients to
the letters.
5. F indingS oF diStRict couRt
The district court determined that the evidence was not suffi-
cient to establish that the ETAR unusually or unfairly benefited
Rounsborg and that the noncompetition clause in the ETAR did
not provide a loophole for Rounsborg to compete. The court
also determined that there was no evidence the ETAR was
drafted in contradiction to the wishes of Radiology Services.
The court found that although Rounsborg established a corpo-
ration to continue practicing radiology, there was no evidence
that he ever practiced radiology or worked for or solicited a
preexisting client of Radiology Services.
Regarding Robinson’s employment agreement, the district
court found the evidence did not show that hall ever saw or
was in possession of an executed copy of Robinson’s agree-
ment. It also found that hall did not provide Rounsborg with
any corporate information he was not entitled to have as a
shareholder of the corporation. The court noted it was doubt-
ful that the client list was a trade secret. Determining there
was no issue of material fact and that the facts did not support
Radiology Services’ causes of action and theories of recovery,
the court granted hall’s motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the complaint.
Iv. ASSIgNMENTS OF ERROR
Radiology Services alleges that the district court erred in
ruling as a matter of law that Radiology Services asked hall
to draft an “exit agreement” for Rounsborg. It also claims
there are issues of fact whether hall simultaneously repre-
sented Radiology Services and Rounsborg, failed to preserve
558 	279 NEbRASKA REPORTS

Radiology Services’ confidential and proprietary information,
and shared Radiology Services’ client list, which it character-
ized as a trade secret. Radiology Services further claims it
established proximate causation between hall’s negligence and
its damages.
v. ANALySIS
1. exit agReeMent
Radiology Services first alleges that the court erred in ruling
as a matter of law that Radiology Services asked hall to draft
an exit agreement for Rounsborg. This assignment of error is
identical to Radiology Services’ first point in its motion to alter
or amend the order and judgment filed with the district court.
The court issued an order overruling the motion and correcting
its initial order with respect to this assignment of error. The
latter order states:
generally the court finds that the arguments and assign-
ments of error submitted by [Radiology Services] are
without merit. The court does note, that it did in fact error
[sic] in suggesting a legal finding of fact that an agent
for [Radiology Services] requested [hall] to draft an exit
agreement for [Rounsborg].
Regardless, no such agreement was ever executed by Rounsborg
or Radiology Services. The court concluded that the correction
of the finding of fact did not change the appropriateness of
summary judgment in hall’s favor and overruled Radiology
Services’ motion to alter or amend the judgment. Accordingly,
this assignment of error was resolved by the district court and
is without merit.
2. legal M alPRactice
Radiology Services’ remaining assignments of error can be
summarized to allege that there were issues of material fact
whether several of hall’s actions violated the standard of care
for practicing attorneys and whether her actions proximately
caused damage to Radiology Services. We review the evi-
dence in a light most favorable to Radiology Services and give
Radiology Services the benefit of all reasonable inferences
deducible from the evidence to determine whether there is a
RADIOLOgy SERvS. v. hALL 	559
Cite as 279 Neb. 553

genuine issue of material fact. See Bamford v. Bamford, Inc.,
ante p. 259, 777 N.W.2d 573 (2010).
[2] In a civil action for legal malpractice, a plaintiff alleg-
ing professional negligence on the part of an attorney must
prove three elements: (1) the attorney’s employment, (2) the
attorney’s neglect of a reasonable duty, and (3) that such
negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss
(damages) to the client. Wolski v. Wandel, 275 Neb. 266, 746
N.W.2d 143 (2008).
It is not disputed that hall was the corporate attorney
for Radiology Services beginning in 1995; that on December
10, 2003, Wu advised her Radiology Services was terminat-
ing its relationship with her; and that the termination was
ratified by the board on January 15, 2004. The remaining
questions are whether hall neglected a reasonable duty and
whether such neglect was the proximate cause of damages to
Radiology Services.
[3,4] In a legal malpractice action, the required standard of
conduct is that the attorney exercise such skill, diligence, and
knowledge as that commonly possessed by attorneys acting
in similar circumstances. Boyle v. Welsh, 256 Neb. 118, 589
N.W.2d 118 (1999). Although the general standard of an attor-
ney’s conduct is established by law, the question of what an
attorney’s specific conduct should be in a particular case and
whether an attorney’s conduct fell below that specific standard
is a question of fact. See Wolski v. Wandel, supra.
[5,6] A proximate cause is a cause that produces a result in
a natural and continuous sequence and without which the result
would not have occurred. Bellino v. McGrath North, 274 Neb.
130, 738 N.W.2d 434 (2007). To establish proximate cause,
the plaintiff must meet three basic requirements: (1) Without
the negligent action, the injury would not have occurred, com-
monly known as the “but for” rule; (2) the injury was a natural
and probable result of the negligence; and (3) there was no
efficient intervening cause. Wilke v. Woodhouse Ford, 278 Neb.
800, 774 N.W.2d 370 (2009).
Radiology Services identifies a number of hall’s actions that
it claims constituted legal malpractice: (a) drafting a retirement
agreement on behalf of Rounsborg and Radiology Services that
560 	279 NEbRASKA REPORTS

was advantageous to Rounsborg, (b) simultaneously represent-
ing Radiology Services and Rounsborg, (c) drafting letters to
Radiology Services’ clients on behalf of Rounsborg, (d) dis-
closing Radiology Services’ client contact information, and (e)
failing to retain Robinson’s noncompete agreement.
(a) Drafting ETAR That Was
Advantageous to Rounsborg
Radiology Services claims that the ETAR hall drafted in
1997 was patently advantageous to Rounsborg and unfair to the
other Radiology Services shareholders. At the time the ETAR
was drafted, Radiology Services had three professional employ-
ees—Orr, Rounsborg, and Wu. Rounsborg joined the group in
1979, and at that time, Orr had been with Radiology Services
for several years. Wu became an employee in 1992. Under the
original employment termination agreement, employees were
entitled to deferred compensation benefits upon their retire-
ment after being employed with Radiology Services for 10
years. The ETAR required an employee to be a shareholder for
10 years before he or she became eligible for deferred compen-
sation benefits.
by 	1997, 	Orr 	and 	Rounsborg 	had 	been 	employees 	of
Radiology Services for at least 10 years and had vested inter-
ests in deferred compensation benefits under the original agree-
ment. The ETAR preserved these interests, specifying that
Rounsborg was eligible to receive deferred compensation as
of April 1, 1989. Wu had been an employee for 5 years, and
the ETAR preserved his interest, as well as specifying he
would be eligible for deferred compensation benefits after
August 1, 2002.
All of Radiology Services’ full-time employees at the time
the ETAR was signed retained the benefits they were entitled
to under the original agreement. hlavaty, Liu, and hatch all
began working for Radiology Services full time after the ETAR
was enacted. There is nothing in the record to suggest that
the ETAR did not reflect the intention of Radiology Services’
shareholders at the time the agreement was drafted or that the
agreement was advantageous to Rounsborg. This assignment of
error is without merit.
RADIOLOgy SERvS. v. hALL 	561
Cite as 279 Neb. 553

(b) Simultaneous Representation of
Radiology Services and Rounsborg
Radiology Services claims that hall was aware of Rounsborg’s
intention to retire following the 90-day disability period and
that she was negligent in failing to inform the corporation of
this plan. It claims that had it known that Rounsborg would
not return to work following the disability period, it would
not have made disability payments. Radiology Services alleges
that it incurred a loss because it paid Rounsborg more than
$38,000 in disability payments. The record does not support
these claims.
The 	evidence 	establishes 	that 	Mazzuca, 	on 	behalf 	of
Radiology Services, asked hall to use her influence with
Rounsborg to try to persuade him to get an alcohol assess-
ment, which she did on December 1, 2003. At the meeting,
Mazzuca said he felt the board would pay short-term dis-
ability to Rounsborg if he took the assessment and followed
its recommendations. Rounsborg inquired about whether he
could return to work if the assessment was favorable. he stated
that if he were allowed to return to work, he would possibly
want the option of working part time and without call obliga-
tions. Mazzuca consulted with Wu and advised Rounsborg that
Radiology Services would consider allowing him to continue
practicing under these conditions.
After meeting with Rounsborg and Mazzuca, hall drafted
an agreement intended to be between Radiology Services and
Rounsborg indicating that Rounsborg would take vacation from
December 15, 2003, until March 15, 2004, and that follow-
ing the completion of the vacation period, Rounsborg could
elect to continue his employment with Radiology Services
or retire with no further notice. The agreement disclosed that
hall was Rounsborg’s daughter and had performed legal work
for Radiology Services in the past. This agreement was never
signed by either party.
Rounsborg did not believe that he had any professional
competency problems and continued to work his regularly
scheduled hours and take previously scheduled vacations until
December 15, 2003. At that time, he agreed to take a leave
562 	279 NEbRASKA REPORTS

of absence. As it became clear that Radiology Services and
Rounsborg would have conflicting positions, on December 10,
Wu advised hall that Radiology Services was terminating its
relationship with hall.
Radiology Services held its annual meeting on January 15,
2004. Rounsborg, Wu, hlavaty, Liu, hatch, and Mazzuca were
present. Rounsborg was removed as president of the corpora-
tion, Wu was elected as the new president, and Rounsborg’s
access to corporate documents and information was suspended.
The board recognized the termination of hall as its attorney.
The board approved Rounsborg’s placement on disability status
with pay from December 15, 2003, through March 15, 2004.
Rounsborg was requested to abide by the noncompete provi-
sions in the ETAR.
The minutes reflect that Rounsborg would be at a health
center in Chicago, Illinois, in January 2004 for an assessment
and that the future employment of Rounsborg depended on
the report from the health center and was at the discretion of
the officers. Rounsborg asked if the board would allow him
to give less than 90 days’ notice if he decided to retire. The
minutes stated: “[Rounsborg] said that March 15, 2004 would
be the possible date to begin his retirement if he decides
to retire.” The board voted on waiving the 90 days’ notice
required by the bylaws, and the motion passed. The day after
the meeting, on January 16, 2004, Rounsborg notified Wu
and Radiology Services that he intended to retire effective
March 16.
There is no evidence that any of the board members were
deceived by Rounsborg’s ultimate decision to retire at the con-
clusion of his 90-day period of disability leave. Rounsborg’s
future employment was dependent on his assessment results
and the vote of the corporation’s officers. Radiology Services
considered the possibility that Rounsborg might not come back
to work when it asked him to take disability leave.
There is no evidence that hall made any representation
to Radiology Services regarding Rounsborg’s retirement, that
she made any arrangement for him to retire without advising
the board, or that he had made a decision to retire before the
RADIOLOgy SERvS. v. hALL 	563
Cite as 279 Neb. 553

January 15, 2004, board meeting. Accordingly, there is no evi-
dence supporting Radiology Services’ claim that hall was neg-
ligent regarding this issue or that any possible negligence was
the proximate cause of Radiology Services’ alleged loss.
Radiology Services also argues that hall assisted Rounsborg
in competing against Radiology Services. This claim is also
unfounded. The evidence is clear that after retiring from
Radiology Services, Rounsborg never worked as a radiologist
again—for great Plains Radiology or anyone else. There is no
evidence that Rounsborg solicited business from Radiology
Services’ clients or that Radiology Services lost any business
due to the actions of Rounsborg or hall.
(c) Letters to Radiology Services’ Clients
Regarding Rounsborg’s Performance
On December 17, 2003, Rounsborg sent letters to Radiology
Services’ clients. The letter noted that Radiology Services had
hired a consultant and asked for any complaints, requests for
review, or disciplinary actions that had been filed concerning
Rounsborg’s work at the facility, as well as any other feedback
the client had regarding Radiology Services. The letter asked
that the responses be sent directly to Rounsborg. Radiology
Services claims that hall drafted the letter and that the letters
resulted in Radiology Services’ losing three clients—hospitals
in Ord, gothenburg, and Cambridge, Nebraska.
Rounsborg was president of Radiology Services at the time
he sent out the letters. he had hired Mazzuca to review
Radiology Services’ operations and sought feedback from cli-
ents. There is no evidence that Rounsborg was not autho-
rized to solicit this type of information. Furthermore, the
evidence does not establish that the letters resulted in the loss
of any clients. Clients who changed radiologists indicated
their decisions were based on dissatisfaction with Radiology
Services, more helpful technical services offered by great
Plains Radiology, or the client’s preference to work with
Robinson. Therefore, even if hall should not have drafted the
letter, there is no evidence that her actions were the proximate
cause of any damages Radiology Services suffered due to the
loss of three clients.
564 	279 NEbRASKA REPORTS

(d) Confidential and Proprietary Information
and Trade Secret
Radiology Services alleges that hall committed legal malprac-
tice by disclosing its client contact information to Rounsborg
and great Plains Radiology. It claims this disclosure constituted
a failure to preserve confidential and proprietary information.
Also relevant to this discussion is Radiology Services’ claim
that this disclosure was a trade secret violation.
The evidence shows that Rounsborg was with Radiology
Services for 25 years and was president of the corporation in
2003. Rounsborg knew the identities of the corporation’s cli-
ents. In his deposition, Rounsborg recited a list of Radiology
Services’ clients from memory. Addresses of these clients were
easily ascertainable. Even assuming hall provided Rounsborg
with a list of client addresses, she did not provide him with
any information that he did not already have or that he was not
otherwise entitled to have as president of the corporation. her
actions did not constitute a failure to preserve confidential or
proprietary information.
A customer list can be a trade secret in some circumstances.
See Home Pride Foods v. Johnson, 262 Neb. 701, 634 N.W.2d
774 (2001). Courts are reluctant to protect customer lists to the
extent that they embody information that is readily ascertain-
able through public sources. Id. Where time and effort have
been expended to identify particular customers with particular
needs or characteristics, courts will prohibit others from using
this information to capture a share of the market. Id. Protected
lists are distinguishable from mere identities and locations of
customers that anyone could easily identify as possible custom-
ers. Id.
To the extent that hall disclosed the client list to great
Plains Radiology, it is evident that the identification of cli-
ents was made to advise great Plains Radiology of the clients
Rounsborg could not work with or solicit to avoid being in vio-
lation of his noncompete agreement. The list consisted of the
names of the hospital clients and the city where each hospital
was located.
It was generally known among medical practitioners which
radiology 	groups 	were 	providing 	services 	to 	the 	various
RADIOLOgy SERvS. v. hALL 	565
Cite as 279 Neb. 553

hospitals. hlavaty testified that if this information was not
known, an individual could look at hospital board records or
call an administrator, technologist, or physician to determine
which radiology group serviced a particular hospital. The “List
of Prohibited hospitals and Facilities” given to great Plains
Radiology listed merely the names and locations of a portion of
Radiology Services’ customers whom great Plains Radiology
could easily have identified on its own.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Radiology Services
suffered any damages as a result of the disclosure of the cus-
tomer list to Rounsborg or great Plains Radiology. Although
Radiology Services lost three clients following Rounsborg’s
departure, each departing hospital indicated that it either was
unhappy with the services provided by Radiology Services or
wished to maintain its relationship with Robinson. This assign-
ment of error is without merit.
(e) Robinson’s Noncompete Agreement
Radiology Services alleges hall was in possession of a
noncompete agreement signed by both Radiology Services
and Robinson and that she failed to retain the signed copy.
As a result, Robinson was able to solicit accounts for his new
employer, great Plains Radiology. Three clients, hospitals in
gothenburg, Ord, and Cambridge, left Radiology Services and
began working with great Plains Radiology, although only
one indicated Robinson was a factor in the decision to switch.
Radiology Services estimates that it lost $482,906 in busi-
ness due to the switches. Without a signed copy of the agree-
ment, Radiology Services claimed it was unable to enforce a
noncompete clause or recover damages from Robinson. It is
undisputed that Robinson left Radiology Services and solicited
its clients on behalf of great Plains Radiology. however, there
is no evidence that Robinson signed the agreement or that hall
had a copy of the signed agreement.
In March 1998, hall sent Radiology Services a draft of an
employment agreement, including a noncompete agreement,
for Robinson and asked that Radiology Services contact her
with changes so the agreement could be signed by all parties.
hall sent several followup requests indicating that she had not
566 	279 NEbRASKA REPORTS

heard back from Radiology Services and asking that a signed
copy of the agreement be returned to her and a copy placed
in the corporation’s minute book. The letters are dated May
28, 1998, and January 22 and April 1, 1999. The April 1 let-
ter includes a draft of an employment agreement for Robinson
and notes that if Radiology Services would like her to pursue
a written employment agreement with Robinson, it should get
back to her. Robinson testified that he never saw the agreement
and never executed it.
Robinson resigned from Radiology Services on January
16, 2004. On February 17, a Radiology Services employee
called hall asking for Robinson’s employment agreement. The
employee noted that hall was unable to locate a signed agree-
ment from Robinson and that hall stated she did not recall ever
having one.
Although hall may have believed that Robinson signed the
agreement, the evidence does not establish that she was ever in
possession of or saw a signed copy of the agreement. Robinson
testified he had not seen or executed the agreement, and there
is no evidence that anyone else ever saw a signed copy of the
agreement. The district court did not err in concluding there
was no genuine issue of material fact regarding Robinson’s
noncompete agreement. because hall never had a signed copy,
there is no proximate cause between her actions and Radiology
Services’ loss.
vI. CONCLUSION
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Radiology
Services, we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material
fact and that hall is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
aFFiRMed.
RADIOLOgy SERvS. v. hALL 	567
Cite as 279 Neb. 553