Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 3 is a crowd

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    Need your opinion on this case.. all money ($5) per opinion goes to the cookie fund (the girls who had to pay 900 bucks for leaving cookies at the neighbors)
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Need your opinion on this case.. all money ($5) per opinion goes to the
      "cookie fund" (the girls who had to pay 900 bucks for leaving cookies at the
      neighbors) will even mention your name as a contributor if you like..
      thanks,
      amy


      This case involves a break up of a three partner internal medicine practice
      called Internal Medicine Group (“IMG”). Plaintiff, Dr. Rat was hired as an
      employee of IMG
      in 1989. Dr. Deck had founded the practice and Dr. Cama had already joined
      the practice as a shareholder prior to Dr. Rat's employment. In December of
      1991, Dr. Rat became a one-third shareholder, officer, director and employee of
      IMG for which he paid $75,000. At all times, the medical practice was managed
      by Dr. Dec and his Mother-in-law Joy Grief. Essentially, the practice was
      doing well bringing in approximately $2 million in annual gross revenue.
      However, in early 2001, Dr. Deck advised that revenues were down and money was
      getting tight. Dr. Rat offered to help in the management of IMG and asked to see
      some financial reports and information. After some delay, Dr. Rat was provided
      minimal information. The doctors kept treating patients and everything
      appeared normal.

      In late March of 2001, Dr. Deck called a shareholder meeting. During that
      meeting, Drs. Deck and Camacho accused Dr. Rat of being verbally confrontational
      with staff. Dr. Rat does not have a temper and was shocked by these
      allegations. Dr. Rat inquired if the other doctors were trying to force him out of
      the practice and they denied that. Dr. Rath did say that if the other doctors
      wanted him to leave, he had other opportunities. The three doctors shook hands
      and the meeting ended. Dr. Rat confirmed with IMG employees that he was not
      confrontational. For the next few weeks there was very little communication
      between the doctors. On April 26, 2001, Drs. Cama and Deck called an emergency
      meeting during which they had the company’s accountant present Dr. Rat with a
      Separation Agreement containing non-compete provisions that would have
      prevented Dr. Rat from working in the only hospitals he had privileges in
      Gainesville. Dr. Rat asked for some time to review the document and advised that if the
      other doctors wanted him out of the practice, they should do it the right way.

      The next morning, Dr. Rath learned through a patient that IMA began answering
      the phones “Deck and Cama.” IMA employees began advising patients and
      other doctors’ offices that called for Dr. Rat that they did not know where Dr.
      Rat was. In addition, IMG without notice turned off Dr. Rat's cell phone and
      pager, canceled his credit cards to the practice, canceled his insurance
      benefits, changed the locks and deprived Dr. Rat of access to his patients and their
      medical records. IMG employees also told patients and medical personnel that
      Dr. Rat 1) left town; 2) moved to Canada; 3) moved to South Florida; 4) that
      they did not know where Dr. Rat was (even after he opened an office in the
      same building on May 17, 2001); and even implied to one patient that Dr. Rat had
      a drinking problem.

      These statements were all false according to Dr. Rat's attorneys.

      After leaving IMG, Dr. Rat was informed by prior IMG employees that
      Defendants Deck and Ms. Grief had daily taken patients from Dr. Rat’s schedule to fill
      Dr. Deck’s schedule. This is financially significant because the doctors
      were compensated each year based on their percentage of the number of patients
      seen and the amount of money generated from patient visits.
      Dr. Rat mitigated his damages by starting his own medical practice in the
      same building as IMG. Although his practice started out slowly, he is doing well
      now. As a result of having to finance the new medical practice, Dr. Rat has
      still not made the same amount of money he would have made, if he continued at
      IMG.


      Dr. Rat sued IMG for breach of his Employment Agreement when IMG improperly
      attempted terminate him. Dr. Rat also sued for Fraud while he was at IMG based
      on the patient switching. An additional count asserted against the
      Defendants is that the actions of the IMG doctors abruptly cutting Dr. Rat off from his
      patients and the medical community, combined with the IMG employees refusing
      to tell patients where Dr. Rats office was or how to contact him, constituted
      defamation, tortious interference and injurious falsehood. The Defendants’
      acts resulted in damage to Dr. Rat’s physician-patient relationships and his
      reputation in the medical community. Dr. Rat has also alleged a breach of
      fiduciary duty when the other two doctor/shareholders conspired to deprive Dr. Rat
      of the value of his shares.

      There are 4 main points
      1) One employee agrees with the allegations of the defendants
      in regard terminating Dr. Rat for cause. The remaining employees did not see
      any of the acts alleged by the Defendants to justify their termination of Dr.
      Rat.
      2) There have been many factual inconsistencies in the
      testimony of the named defendants and with the testimony of the employees
      3) Plaintiff will call patients to testify to the false
      information provided, however, see defendant's point #1

      and Now the moment you have been waiting for: the other side of the story!!!

      The Defendants claim that Dr. Rat quit IMG, started his own medical
      practice, tried to steal patients and would have been terminated for cause. The
      doctors deny that any IMG employees misinformed patients or medical personnel of
      Dr. Rat’s whereabouts. Defendants deny any allegation of patient switching,
      that a fiduciary duty to Dr. Rat existed or that they breached any such duty.
      Dr. Rat has started his own medical practice and should not be compensated
      beyond the end of 2001.
      There are 4 major points to the defense case:
      1) All the patients that would supposedly testify as to the supposed
      false comments ultimately found Dr. Rat and are treating with him.
      2) How the March 2001 meeting was left (could the other defendants have
      reasonably believed Dr Rat quit – when he was at best equivocal and they
      Employment Agreement called for a written resignation;
      3) The only employees who would testify to the alleged patient switching
      worked at IMG in the late 1990’s. None of the current employees experienced the
      patient switching. Therefore, no employees will testify.
      4) Plaintiff's accounting expert has declared business bankruptcy and has
      been suspended by the IRS for two years from representing persons in tax audits.

      Damages:

      The Plaintiff’s expert testified that Dr. Rat’s damages has 4 components = A
      + B + C + D.
      A = the estimated loss to Dr. Rat for the patient switching ($44,000)
      B = The loss of the specific salary and benefits called for in the employment
      agreement through the end of 2001. ($350,000)
      C = The loss each year to Dr. Rat of the profits from his IMG contract less
      what he did make in his new medical practice ($800,000)
      D = The value of Dr. Rat's 1/3 share of IMG. ($797,000).

      Defense witness state the value of the case for plaintiff is $0 and that the
      value of the business was a nominal net book value.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • mrgfillmore
      Amy, are you not using this forum to help one side or the other in these cases pick and sway the jury to help their side win? What bothers me is that these
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Amy, are you not using this forum to help one side or the other in
        these cases pick and sway the jury to help their side win?

        What bothers me is that these techniques are basically a sophisticated
        form of jury tampering. Is that a good thing? many critcs seem to
        feel it's not. I refer you to an editorial review of one book on the
        subject, Stack and Sway, and ask for your comments:

        From Amazon.com: The authors take a critical look at the science of
        jury consultants in Stack and Sway. Using the techniques of modern
        social science, psychology, and market research, jury consultants
        apply sophisticated research methods to figure out the best strategies
        for picking and swaying a jury. This book examines whether the
        industry is effective and it reveals the tricks of the trade. --David
        Marshall Nissman, J.D.

        Product Description:
        A new and largely hidden profession has emerged during the past three
        decades. Drawing on the techniques of modern social science,
        psychology, and market research, its practitioners seek to remake the
        way we pursue justice in the United States. Jury consultants help
        lawyers to pick - some would say "stack" - juries predisposed to
        render the "right" verdict. And consultants apply sophisticated
        research methods to figure out the best strategies for swaying the
        panel. What are we to make of this new and steadily growing industry?
        Do the techniques work?
        IS THIS, AS SOME CRITICS HAVE ARGUED, A NEW FORM OF HIGH-TECH
        JURY-RIGGING, NOT MUCH MORE ACCEPTIBLE THAN CRUDER FORMS OF JURY
        TAMPERING?
        Or do the methods of jury consultants amount to little more than an
        extension of what attorneys have always done? This book will reveal
        the "tricks of the trade" and explore the many ways in which trial
        consultants have infiltrated the courtroom. The authors' purpose is
        not to launch an all-out attack on this growing industry, but rather
        to pull back the curtains, allowing a fair and balanced assessment of
        a new phenomenon in American justice.

        --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, Jurydoctor@a... wrote:
        >
        > Need your opinion on this case.. all money ($5) per opinion goes to the
        > "cookie fund" (the girls who had to pay 900 bucks for leaving
        cookies at the
        > neighbors) will even mention your name as a contributor if you like..
        > thanks,
        > amy
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.