Medical Practices (Physicians)
This U.S. industry comprises establishments of health practitioners having the degree of M.D. (Doctor of medicine) or D.O. (Doctor of osteopathy) primarily engaged in the independent practice of general or specialized medicine (except psychiatry or psychoanalysis) or surgery. These practitioners operate private or group practices in their own offices (e.g., centers, clinics) or in the facilities of others, such as hospitals or HMO medical centers.
Physician Shareholder Asserts Transaction Bonuses Breach Board’s Fiduciary Duties—Appeals Court Finds Them Just and Reasonable
A physician shareholder claimed that the fair market value of his one share (of 75 total shares) was undervalued when the physician practice was merged and sold to NAMM California, a company that develops and manages physician provider networks. NAMM paid $18 million in the merger, and over $12 million of that amount was paid to individual physician shareholders in the form of “transaction bonuses.” The remaining almost $6 million was paid pro rata to the shareholders. The plaintiff appealed the judgment of the California trial court, but the appellate court deemed the transaction bonuses as “just and reasonable” and affirmed the trial court.
Ghaly v. Riverside Cmty. Healthplan Med. Grp.
A physician shareholder claimed that the fair market value of his one share (of 75 total shares) was undervalued when the physician practice was merged and sold to NAMM California, a company that develops and manages physician provider networks. NAMM paid $18 million in the merger, and over $12 million of that amount was paid to individual physician shareholders in the form of “transaction bonuses.” The remaining almost $6 million was paid pro rata to the shareholders. The plaintiff appealed the judgment of the California trial court, but the appellate court deemed the transaction bonuses as “just and reasonable” and affirmed the trial court.
Chalasani v. Bollempalli
In this Arizona appeal of a divorce case, the husband physician did not engage a valuation expert and impeded the discovery of information relevant to the valuation to the wife’s valuation expert. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision of value and its apportionment of 50% of the husband’s value in the practice, noting the lack of an expert by the husband and the failure of the husband’s practice to cooperate with the wife’s expert.
Appeals Court Affirms Value of Husband’s Medical Practice—He Fails to Provide Expert Testimony as to the Value
In this Arizona appeal of a divorce case, the husband physician did not engage a valuation expert and impeded the discovery of information relevant to the valuation to the wife’s valuation expert. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision of value and its apportionment of 50% of the husband’s value in the practice, noting the lack of an expert by the husband and the failure of the husband’s practice to cooperate with the wife’s expert.
Maher v. Cmejrek
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
Indiana Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Medical Practice Interests of Husband but Remands for Recalculation of Husband’s Income for Child Support
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
Jayawardena v. Daka
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
North Carolina Appeals Court Affirms Decisions on Value of Businesses Under Buy-Sell Agreements
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
Chase v. Chase
On appeal, the husband asked the court to review whether the wife needed alimony given the assets she otherwise received in the equitable distribution and her earning capacity as a pharmacist, whether an award of rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro by the trial court was appropriate, and whether the trial court’s valuation of the husband’s medical practice was in error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all aspects reviewed and did not award legal fees to either party.
Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Decision on Spousal Support and on the Value of Husband’s Medical Practice
On appeal, the husband asked the court to review whether the wife needed alimony given the assets she otherwise received in the equitable distribution and her earning capacity as a pharmacist, whether an award of rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro by the trial court was appropriate, and whether the trial court’s valuation of the husband’s medical practice was in error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all aspects reviewed and did not award legal fees to either party.
Goicochea v. Goicochea
This case was an appeal from a trial court’s various decisions relating to a divorce matter. Among other issues appealed, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of the value of the husband’s small minority interest (0.829301%) in an ambulatory surgery center. The wife’s expert used a prior transaction of a 1.1125% in the center to determine the husband’s value.
Maryland Court Affirms the Value of Husband’s Minority Interest in an Ambulatory Surgery Center
This case was an appeal from a trial court’s various decisions relating to a divorce matter. Among other issues appealed, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of the value of the husband’s small minority interest (0.829301%) in an ambulatory surgery center. The wife’s expert used a prior transaction of a 1.1125% in the center to determine the husband’s value.
Kuzma v. N. Ariz. Healthcare Corp.
The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.
U.S. District Court Partially Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Qui Tam Case on Excess Purchase Price Under the False Claims Act
The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.
Hester v. Hester
In this Virginia divorce case, the court, among other things, did not accept the valuation of either valuator and instead determined its own value crafted from the two valuations that were submitted. The result, by chance or otherwise, resulted in “splitting the baby.”
Divorce Matter Results in the Court ‘Splitting the Baby’ to Value a 20% Interest in an S Corp. Medical Practice
In this Virginia divorce case, the court, among other things, did not accept the valuation of either valuator and instead determined its own value crafted from the two valuations that were submitted. The result, by chance or otherwise, resulted in “splitting the baby.”
In a Primarily Procedural Ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals Affirms a Damages Award Including Goodwill
In this primarily procedural ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed judgment from a lower court awarding damages, including goodwill, for breach of contract arising from a sale of a medical practice, including goodwill. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ failure to comply with the transfer assistant clauses in the sale contract destroyed the practice goodwill, among other things.
Sherman v. Sherrod
In this primarily procedural ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed judgment from a lower court awarding damages, including goodwill, for breach of contract arising from a sale of a medical practice, including goodwill. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ failure to comply with the transfer assistant clauses in the sale contract destroyed the practice goodwill, among other things.
In COVID-19 Business Interruption Case, Court Finds Plaintiff ENT Practice Fails to Allege Any Harm to Insured Property
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff claims losses due to COVID-19 shutdowns, the plaintiff fails to allege any actual harm to the insured property. Key Words: COVID-19, coronavirus, damages, physical loss, insurance, business interruption loss, business interruption ...
S. Fla. Ent Assocs. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff claims losses due to COVID-19 shutdowns, the plaintiff fails to allege any actual harm to the insured property.
Alabama Appeals Court Affirms Calculation of Value Is Admissible and Lets Rohling Stand
In divorce case, Alabama appeals court upholds trial court’s admission of calculation of value from qualified expert for medical practice; appeals court agrees with lower court that objections to methodology go toward weight and expert’s credibility; court lets earlier Rohling decision stand.
Horne-Ballard v. Ballard
In divorce case, Alabama appeals court upholds trial court’s admission of calculation of value from qualified expert for medical practice; appeals court agrees with lower court that objections to methodology go toward weight and expert’s credibility; court lets earlier Rohling decision stand.
Perser v. Perser
Court upholds award to nonowner spouse related to value of husband’s medical practice where husband bought practice prior to marriage and was sole owner; court notes there was goodwill attributable to the business and finds other factors indicate business had assets that were marital property.
Factors Other Than Goodwill Support Award to Nonowner Spouse Related to Owner’s Medical Practice
Court upholds award to nonowner spouse related to value of husband’s medical practice where husband bought practice prior to marriage and was sole owner; court notes there was goodwill attributable to the business and finds other factors indicate business had assets that were marital property.