S. Ct. Civ. No. 2014-0056

Considering an appeal from a Superior Court order denying a physician's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin a hospital from terminating her employment as a member of its medical staff, the physician has failed to meet her burden of establishing a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to herself, the absence of greater harm to the hospital, and that injunctive relief would be in the public interest. While the Superior Court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error, the ultimate decision to grant or deny an injunction is reviewed solely for abuse of discretion, and in this case all four factors weigh against granting injunctive relief. Although the parties have briefed the issue of whether this Court should adopt the sequential or sliding-scale test for preliminary injunctions, no reason is found to disturb the Superior Court's decision to deny the physician's motion for a preliminary injunction, whether under the sequential test or the sliding-scale test. Accordingly, the Superior Court's September 5, 2014 order denying the physician's request for a preliminary injunction is affirmed.