Ckhs, Inc. v. Prospect Med Hldgs, Inc.

Summary

This dissent argues that a prohibitory preliminary injunction requires concrete, fact-specific evidence of irreparable harm and that generalized expert testimony about the effects of hospital closures is insufficient. It contends that the appellate court properly scrutinized the evidentiary basis for the injunction under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and that the parties' contractual stipulation regarding irreparable harm could not substitute for factual proof. The dissent would conclude that the injunction was unsupported, although the controlling disposition is not stated in the supplied text.