Deana A. Pollard Sacks v. Thomas F. Hall and Thomas F. Hall, D.D.S., M.S. P.A.
481 S.W.3d 238
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Sacks contracted with Dr. Hall for orthodontic treatment on June 6, 2006; the handwritten financial contract showed a $5,995 regular fee, an estimated $2,000 insurance adjustment, an initial payment of $4,775, and a $1,220 estimated insurance benefit that was not assigned on a signed form.
- Dr. Hall applied lower braces and provided some OrthoClear trays; Sacks later developed dental problems, stopped using the trays, and last saw Dr. Hall in November 2006.
- Aetna ultimately refused to pay the $1,220 estimated benefit; Sacks paid only $4,775 and denied ever being told she owed $1,220 or signing a second contract; Dr. Hall never sent a bill or collection letter for $1,220.
- Sacks sued Dr. Hall (DTPA, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, later breach of contract); Dr. Hall counterclaimed for breach of contract seeking damages and attorney’s fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001.
- A jury found Sacks breached the contract and awarded Dr. Hall $1,220 in damages; it also awarded Dr. Hall $35,000 trial attorney’s fees and $45,000 conditional appellate fees; the trial court entered judgment accordingly.
- On appeal the court affirmed the $1,220 damages but modified the judgment to delete Dr. Hall’s attorney’s-fee award because he failed to plead and prove presentment of his contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sacks) | Defendant's Argument (Dr. Hall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of damages | $1,220 award unsupported; no evidence of value of care performed | Dr. Hall expected $5,995 under contract and received $4,775; loss = $1,220 | Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient for $1,220 benefit-of-the-bargain damages |
| Submission of damages question | Trial court erred to submit damages because value evidence lacking | Damages measure is benefit-of-the-bargain; jury could rely on contract price and payments | Question properly submitted; court corrected erroneous jury instruction definition on appeal and found error harmless |
| Condition precedent (insurance assignment/new contract) | Contract required signed insurance assignment/new contract before recovering unpaid balance | No assignment ever executed so condition never became operable; Aetna never paid then ceased | Overruled: provision construed as inapplicable because no assignment occurred; Dr. Hall may recover balance |
| Presentment requirement for attorney’s fees (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.002) | Dr. Hall failed to plead or prove he presented claim and gave 30-day tender opportunity | Dr. Hall cites oral statement that he refused to treat unless Sacks paid more and an internal ledger showing $1,220 remaining | Reversed as to fees: Dr. Hall did not plead presentment and presented insufficient evidence of a demand/notice; fee award deleted |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing legal and factual sufficiency of evidence)
- Matheus v. Sasser, 164 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (benefit-of-the-bargain damages measure)
- Clear Lake City Water Auth. v. Friendswood Dev. Co., 344 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (purpose of benefit-of-the-bargain damages)
- St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. 2003) (when charge error preserved, measure sufficiency against correct legal standard)
- Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2012) (harm analysis for jury-charge error)
- Helping Hands Home Care, Inc. v. Home Health of Tarrant Cnty., Inc., 393 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (presentment requirement under § 38.002 cannot be satisfied by pleadings alone)
- Gordon v. Leasman, 365 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (oral request or nonpayment can satisfy § 38.002 presentment; burden to plead and prove presentment)