Assaf v. Trinity Medical Center
821 F.3d 847
7th Cir.2016Background
- Dr. Bassam Assaf worked as medical director for Trinity Medical’s epilepsy clinic and was terminated in August 2009.
- Assaf sued for breach of contract; the parties entered a February 26, 2010 settlement under which Trinity would employ Assaf as Director of the Neuroscience Program through at least 2011.
- The agreed employment never materialized; the district court granted summary judgment for breach and awarded Assaf lost salary and compensatory damages, but initially barred lost professional fees for lack of timely computation.
- This court reversed that evidentiary bar, holding Assaf had timely submitted a computation and remanded for assessment of lost professional fees (Assaf v. Trinity Medical Center, 696 F.3d 681).
- On remand Assaf tried lost professional fees before a jury; the jury found he did not sustain those damages and judgment entered for Trinity; Assaf appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings and the characterization of the fees as consequential damages.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Assaf lacks a personal loss in the contested professional fees because the fees were paid to a practice owned by his wife (not him), he had no ownership interest, and his salary/compensation was not reduced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Trinity’s expert and exhibits | Trial rulings excluded/limited plaintiff’s evidence; errors prejudiced verdict | Any alleged evidentiary errors were harmless because plaintiff suffered no recoverable loss | Harmless; court need not reach merits because plaintiff lacked a cognizable claim to the fees |
| Lost professional fees: recoverability | Assaf: fees generated by his services were his damages from breach | Trinity: fees were paid to the practice (owned by Assaf’s wife); Assaf had no ownership or loss of income | Assaf cannot recover those fees—he had no legal/ownership interest and suffered no personal income loss |
| Classification of fees: direct vs consequential | Assaf argued fees should be treated as direct damages from breach | Trinity argued fees were consequential and not recoverable by Assaf personally | Court declined to decide classification because Assaf conceded no personal loss; result is same—no recovery |
| Burden of proof for damages | Assaf relied on post-discovery computation allowed by prior appeal | Trinity maintained Assaf failed to show he personally incurred loss or had standing to recover business fees | Plaintiff bears burden; because fees belonged to the practice/wife and did not reduce his salary, he failed to prove personal damages |
Key Cases Cited
- TAS Distrib. Co. v. Cummins Engine Co., 491 F.3d 625 (7th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to prove actual damages and a reasonable basis for computation)
- Merry Gentleman, LLC v. George & Leona Prods., Inc., 799 F.3d 827 (7th Cir.) (same rule on damages burden)
- Pamado, Inc. v. Hedinger Brands, LLC, 785 F. Supp. 2d 698 (N.D. Ill.) (damages proof and reasonable computation requirement)
- Assaf v. Trinity Medical Center, 696 F.3d 681 (7th Cir.) (prior appeal: Assaf’s computation of lost professional fees was timely for trial purposes)