SCOTT E. GAMMONS v. ADROIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.; GRAZYNA H. GAMMONS; KELLEY PATTEN; GENE GAMMONS - Articles

All Content

SCOTT E. GAMMONS v. ADROIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.; GRAZYNA H. GAMMONS; KELLEY PATTEN; GENE GAMMONS

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jan 22, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: John M. Lawhorn, FRANTZ, MCCONNELL & SEYMOUR, LLP, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: W. Edward Shipe, BROCK SHIPE KLENK PLC, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: John M. Lawhorn, Sharon H. Kim, FRANTZ, MCCONNELL & SEYMOUR, LLP, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: W. Edward Shipe, Avery C. Lovingfoss, BROCK SHIPE KLENK PLC, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellees.

Judge(s): WHITE, THAPAR, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. The legal questions in this appeal arise from a bitter fight pitting a son against his father and stepfamily over a family business. Scott Gammons claims that Adroit Medical Systems, Inc., Grazyna Gammons (his stepmother), Kelley Patten (his stepsister), and Gene Gammons (his father) (collectively, the defendants) diverted company funds for Grazyna and Kelley’s personal benefit without accounting for the tax consequences. According to Scott, the defendants fired him because he reported their alleged financial malfeasance to the Internal Revenue Service. He further claims that if the defendants are not removed from the business, they will continue misappropriating company funds. Scott brought an action seeking recovery under federal and state whistleblower statutes and state common law. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on all five of his claims, reasoning that Scott had obtained a legally baseless emergency conservatorship over Gene and used it to mount a corporate takeover. After the defendants regained control of the family business, that coup—irrespective of any whistleblowing—motivated their decision to fire Scott, defeating Scott’s claims as a matter of law. We affirm.

Attachments: