Gateway Consultants Group, Inc. v. Premier Physicians Ctrs., Inc.
2017 Ohio 1443
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gateway Consultants and Premier entered a consulting agreement: Gateway would negotiate higher reimbursement rates with Medical Mutual; Gateway paid $5,000/month and entitled to a 25% success fee on increased revenue.
- New three-year Medical Mutual contract (effective May 1, 2012) increased base reimbursement rates over the prior contract. Premier paid monthly fees but refused to pay any success fee.
- Gateway sued for breach of contract; a jury found Premier liable and awarded Gateway $330,847.48 plus prejudgment interest.
- Premier moved for JNOV and a new trial arguing damages were unsupported, excessive, and influenced by inadmissible evidence and misconduct; trial court denied those motions.
- The Eighth District affirmed liability but found the jury award unsupported by the record, reduced damages to $209,750 (Gateway’s 25% of $839,000 estimated increased revenue), and recalculated prejudgment interest to $14,343.45.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gateway) | Defendant's Argument (Premier) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support damages | Spreadsheet and analyst testimony provided reasonable basis for jury calculation of increased revenue | No testimony or reliable evidence supports the $330,847.48 figure; at most $41,194.42 (Medical Mutual analyst) | JNOV denied; court found sufficient evidence to create a jury question but final jury number lacked support; addressed via remittitur |
| Admissibility and scope of Gill’s testimony (expert vs lay) | Gill testified about documents and calculations used in negotiations; permitted as fact testimony | Gill should have been excluded as an untimely/unsworn expert and his opinions were unreliable under Daubert | Trial court did not abuse discretion; much of Gill’s testimony was admissible fact witness testimony and not subject to Daubert expert reliability rules |
| Jury misconduct / prejudicial closing argument | Closing argument’s rounding and request for $250,000 was reasonable aggregation of claimed increases | Closing demanded an unsupported $250,000 and improperly influenced jury; misconduct warrants new trial | No abuse of discretion; argument did not constitute the level of misconduct or passion and prejudice to require a new trial |
| Appropriate remedy for excessive/unsubstantiated verdict | Affirm full jury award | Remittitur or new trial on damages; jury award is excessive and not supported by evidence | Court ordered remittitur (with Gateway’s consent): reduced judgment to $209,750 and recalculated prejudgment interest to $14,343.45 |
Key Cases Cited
- Posin v. A.B.C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc., 45 Ohio St.2d 271 (Ohio 1976) (standard for JNOV/directed verdict review)
- Malone v. Courtyard by Marriott Ltd. Partnership, 74 Ohio St.3d 440 (Ohio 1996) (sufficient evidence creates jury question)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (Ohio 1995) (jury assessment of damages entitled to great deference; reversal only for passion or prejudice)
- Rhodes v. Baird, 16 Ohio St. (Ohio 1866) (contract damages must flow naturally from breach and be shown with reasonable certainty)
- TJX Cos. v. Hall, 183 Ohio App.3d 236 (Ohio Ct. App.) (estimates acceptable where a reasonable basis of computation exists)
- Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 98 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2002) (remittitur standards)
- Chester Park Co. v. Schulte, 120 Ohio St. 273 (Ohio 1928) (appellate power to affirm with remittitur)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (expert testimony reliability standard)