I

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
II IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
12
PACIFIC MEDICAID SERVICES, INC. d/b/a ) Cause No.
13 OUTREACH SERVICES, a Washington )
14 corporation, and ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
) AND INJUNCTIVE RELmF
15 OUTREACH SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, )
16 INC., d/b/a OUTREACH SERVICES, a )
Minnesota corporation, )
17 )
Plaintiffs, )
18
)
19 v. )
)
20
COREY SHANK and CORIE SHANK, husband )
21 and wife, and the marital community composed )
22 thereof. )
)
23 Defendants. )
)
24
25 . COME NOW plaintiffs Pacific Medicaid Services, Inc., d/b/a Outreach Services ("PMSr')
26 and Outreach Services of Minnesota, Inc., d/b/a Outreach Services ("OSM''), collectively
27 "Outreach',) by and through their attorneys, The Adolph Law Group, PLLC, and allege as
28 follows:

COMPLAINT - PACIFIC MEDICAID SERVICES, INC.- 1 LAW OFFICES

THE ADOLPH LAW GROUP,PLLC
7100 COLUMBIA CENTER

ORIGINAL
101 flfTHAVENUE
SBAITLB, WASIIINGrQN 98104
(206) 621·1900
1 I. PARTIES
2 1.1 Pacific Medicaid Services, Inc. (PMSI) is a Washington corporation that does
3 business throughout the United States, including in Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Idaho,
4 Montana, West Virginia and Florida. PMSI is in tbe business of providing hospitals and
5 healtb plans Medicaid eligibility, SSIISSDI advocacy, tbird party reimbursement, and otber
6 uncompensated care management services.
7 1.2 Outreach Services of Minnesota, Inc. ("OSM'') is a Minnesota corporation
8 tbat does business throughout tbe United States, including in Minnesota, illinois and
9 Wisconsin and is an "Affiliated Company" ofPMSI as referenced below. It is engaged in tbe
10 same line of business as PMSI.
11 1.3 Defendant Corey Shank ("Shank" or "Defendant") was employed by PMSI
12 from April 6, 1999 until March 27, 2009. Since January 16,2007 he was Vice President of
13 Operations. Defendant Corie Shank is the wife of Corey Shank. All actions taken by Shank
14 were taken on behalf of and for tbe benefit of tbe marital community of Corey and Corie
15 Shank.
16 1.4 Upon information and belief, Shank resides in Spokane County, Washington.
17 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18 2.1 The acts alleged herein arose from and/or relate to Shank's employment witb
19 Outreach in King County, Washington.
20 2.2 The Agreement that Outreach alleges herein was breached by Shank was
21 entered into in King County, Washington.
22 2.3 Said Agreement contains a clause in which Shank consents to jurisdiction and
23 venue in King County. Washington.
24 2.4 The acts of Shank alleged herein harmed Outreach's business and property in
25 King County, Washington.
26 2.5 The Court tberefore has jurisdiction over this matter and venue is proper in
27 this Court.
28 1lI. STATEMENT OF FACTS
3.1 Shank was hired by PMSI on April 26, 1999. His salary increased from
$70,000 annually to $110,000 annually, effective June 15,2005. Effective January 16,2007,

COMPLAINT - PACIFIC MEDICAID SERVICES. INC.- 2 LAW OFFICES

THE ADOLPH LAW GROUP, PLLC
7100 COLUMBIA CENTER
701 F1Fl11 AVENUE
SEATTLE., WASmNGTON 98104
(206) 621-7900
1 Shank was promoted to Vice President of Operations for PMSI and received a pay increase to
2 $130,000 annually.
3 3.2 As part of his new position as Vice President of Operations, Shank
4 participated actively in customer development plans, customer lists, pricing structures on
5 services and specific responses to requests for proposals.
6 3.3 As a condition of Shank's promotion, as a means of protecting its
7 confidential information and customer base, and in consideration for the promotion and pay
8 increase to $130,000, Shank signed an Employment Agreement containing noncompetition
9 and non-solicitation clauses. Shank signed the agreement on or about January 16, 2007. In
10 consideration for a pay raise to $150,000, Shank signed an amendment to the Employment
11 Agreement effective November 1, 2008. The Employment Agreement, as amended, is
12 referred to herein as the "Agreement." The Agreement is by and between PMSI and Shank,
13 and provides that PMSl's affiliated entities, including OSM, are intended third party
14 beneficiaries of the Agreement.
15 3.4 hi section 10.1 of the Agreement, Shank agreed notto, directly or indirectly, .
16 "own, manage, operate or control or participate in the ownership, management, operation, or
17 control of, or be connected with or have any interest in, as a stockholder, director, officer,
18 employee, agent, consultant, assistant, advisor, sole proprietor, partner, or otherwise, any
19 Competitor," during any period of employment and for a period of six (6) months following
20 termination.
21 3.5 In section 10.2 of the Agreement, Shank agreed not to, "directly or indirectly,
22 induce or attempt to induce any employee, officer, director, agent, independent contractor,
23 consultant, customer or potential customer, supplier or other service provider of the Company
24 or its Affiliated Entities to terminate its relationship with, or cease providing services and
25 products to, or purchasing products from. the Company or its Affiliated Entities, or otherwise
26 solicit, contract or engage in business with any customer or potential customer of the
27 Company or its Affiliated Entities," for a period of eighteen (18) months following
28 termination.
3.6 Beginning in January, 2009, Shank had communications with Jena
Anderberg, Director of Business Services at FaIrview Health Services ("FaIrview") on behalf

COMPLAINT - PACIFIC MEDICAID SERVICES, lNC,- 3 LAW OFFICES

THE AOOLPH LAW GROUP, PLLC
7100 COLUMBIA CENTER
701 F1FI'H AVENUE
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 621·7900
1 of Outreach and PMSI. Fairview is a regionally integrated network of hospitals in the state of
2 Minnesota and one of Outreach's primary customers, having generated in excess of one
3 million dollars over the three years ending December 31, 2008. Shank's communications
4 concerned the services provided by Outreach to Fairview and a proposal to expand the scope
5 of those services. On February 9, 2009, Shank drafted and submitted a proposal on behalf of
6 Outreach to Ms. Anderberg for an expansion of Outreach's services. On March 12, 2009, Ms.
7 Anderberg emailed Shank and indicated Fairview would be obtaining proposals from one or
8 two other companies to explore their options, and that Outreach did not need to do anything

9 further.
10 3.7 On June 1,2009, Fairview advised Outreach that they had completed
11 presentations from other companies and that they would be meeting internally to discuss how
12 to proceed. On June 15,2009, Fairview advised Outreach that they would be engaging in a
13 more formal RFP process and provided Outreach with a Request for Proposal to which
14 Outreach responded.
15 3.8 Shank's employment with Outreach terminated on March 27, 2009. Soon
16 after ending his employment with Outreach, Shank obtained a position as Vice President of
17 Corporate Development of a competitor of Outreach, Gardner & Associates, LLC and/or
18 Gardner Group, LLC, d/b/a Gardner Group ("Gardner"). Gardner is based in Sacramento,
19 California, but Shank continues to reside in Spokane, Washington while working from his
20 home as well as traveling to various states on behalf of Gardner.. .
21 3.9 Prior to Shankjoining Gardner, Outreach is informed and believes that
22 Gardner's business focused on providing workers' compensation claims resolution services to
23 hospitals and health plans. Upon information and belief, Fairview had no contact with, or
24 knowledge of Gardner prior to Shankjoining Gardner and that Gardner was not one of the
25 companies whom Fairview sought bid proposals in March, 2009.
26 3.10 Shortly after Shankjoined Gardner as Development Vice President, Shank
27 and Gardner elected to submit a proposal to Fairview for services competitive to those
28 currently offered by Outreach and formerly managed by Shank, in addition to the identical
expanded services outlined by the proposal Shank had submitted on Outreach's behalf in
. February, 2009. nuringFairview's proposal process, Outreach.isinformed and believes that

COMPLAINT - PACIFIC MEDICAID SERVICES. INC.- 4 LAWQFFlCES

t'lIE ADOLPH LAW GROUP, PLLC
7100 COWMBIA CENTER
701 FIF11! AVENUE
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 621·7900
1 Shank initiated a connection via the "Linke dIn" social networking site with Ms. Anderberg.
2 3.11 During the week of September 29, 2009, David Cartier, Outreach's Director
3 of Development in Minnesota, received informal notice that Fairview bad decided to hire
4 Gardner instead of continuing or renewing its contract with Outreach.
5 3.12 Upon information and belief, Fairview would have had no knowledge of or
6 interest in Gardner's proposal was it not for the solicitation of Fairview by Shank in violation
7 of the "Agreement," with PMSI.
8 3.13 In July, 2009, Outreach learned of a "blast" e-mail sent by Shank on behalf of
9 Gardner to Susan Coburn, the Director of Business Services at St. Joseph Regional Medical
10 Center, an Idaho customer with whom Outreach had been negotiating since on or before
11 January 2009.
12 3.14. On or before July 8, 2009, shortly after Shank assumed his position with .
13 Gardner, Gardner contacted Iris Chang, the Patient Financial Service Director at Castle
14 Medical Center in Hawaii, another Outreach customer, about providing services to them.
15 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF NON-COMPETITION AND
NON-SOLICITATION COVENANTS
16
17 4.1 Outreach realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1.1 through 3.14 herein.
18 4.2 Shank is employed with a competitor, engaged in competitive activities and
19 has solicited the above-mentioned and potentially other Outreach customers and/or potential
20 customers in violation of the Agreement.
21 4.3 Shank's actions as described herein constitute a material breach of the
22 Agreement between PMSI and Shank, of which OSM was an intended third-party beneficiary.
23 4.4 .' Ou1):each.has or will suffer damages as a direct result of Shank's actions, in .
24 an amount to be established at trial.
25 v. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
BUSINESS RELATIONS
26
5.1 Outreach realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1.1 through 3.14 herein.
27
5.2 Shank's actions of wrongfully and intentionally referring, diverting and/or
28
otherwise directing Outreach's customers to Gardner in breach of his contract interfered with
Outreach's business relations with said entities.

COMPLAINT - PACIFIC MEDICAID SERVICES, INC.- 5 LAWOFFlCBS

THE ADOLPH lAW CROUP, PLLC
7100 COLUMBIA CENTER
701 FIFTII AVENUE
SBATILE. WASHINGTON 981G4
.'(206) 621·7900
1 5.3 Outreach has suffered damages as a direct result of Shank's actions, in an
2 amount to be established at trial.
. ,',' '",',VI. '?7REQUE~TFORRELIEF';'
, ;:

4 WHEREFORE, PlaintiffsPMSI and OSM request judgment against Defendants as

5 follows:
6 1. For a declaratory judgment that the Agreement is valid and binding;
7 2. Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive relief preventing Shank from violating
8 the non-solicitation and non-competition covenants in his Agreement with PMSI;
9 3. Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive relief precluding Shank from using any
10 of Outreach's confidential and proprietary information at any time;
11 4. Damages for all lost contract revenues due PMSI and OSM resulting from
12 violations of the Agreement including disgorgement of any improper gains resulting from
13 Shank's breaches and consequential damages;
14 5. An award of actual and exemplary damages;
15 6. For reasonable attorney fees and costs, pursuant to the Agreement, RCW
16 4.84, et seq., or as otherwise allowed by law;
17 7. For such~r relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
18 DATED this L day of October, 2009.
19 THE ADOLPH LAW GROUP, PLLC

~A -6-i.1A-
20
21 By
22
R~h, WSBA # 4788,
Thomas W. Stone, WSBA #37559
23
Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Pacific Medicaid
24 Services, Inc. and Outreach Services of
Minnesota, Inc.
25
26
27
28

COMPLAINT - PACIFIC MEDICAID SBRVICES,INC.- 6 LAW OFFICES

THE ADOLPH LAW GROUP, PLLC
7100 COLUMBIACENTBR
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9811)4
(206) 621-79()0