Hamlet H.M.A., LLC v. Hernandez, 262 N.C. App. 51

Background

Hernandez (physician) and Hamlet H.M.A./Sandhills Regional Medical Center negotiated a Physician Recruitment Agreement (signed 29 Mar 2011) providing guaranteed payments, loan/relocation/start-up reimbursements, and an option to convert to an 18‑month employment agreement with a stated base salary.
Parties stipulated that plaintiff paid Hernandez 21 payments totaling $902,259.66; dispute was whether Hernandez was obligated to repay amounts after plaintiff purportedly failed to offer the post‑18‑month employment contract when Hernandez timely exercised the option.
Hernandez closed his practice in Apr 2013 before the 36‑month term ended; plaintiff sued for breach of contract and repayment; Hernandez counterclaimed (breach, fraud, UDTP, unjust enrichment).
After a nine‑day jury trial, the jury found for plaintiff and awarded $334,341.14; trial court denied Hernandez’s JNOV and new trial motions; Hernandez appealed.
Appellate court upheld denial of new trial (no abuse of discretion — verdict amount alone insufficient to show compromise), reversed directed verdict dismissing Hernandez’s UDTP counterclaim (learned‑profession exception did not necessarily bar contract‑inducement UDTP claims), and found Hernandez failed to preserve his parol‑evidence argument.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury verdict was an impermissible compromise verdict requiring a new trial	Amount simply reflected damages supported by evidence; complex multi‑issue trial; no clear compromise	Jury had only two real outcomes (repay all or none); $334k verdict indicates improper splitting/compromise	No abuse of discretion; verdict amount alone, in complex case, did not demonstrate compromise; new trial denied
Whether the learned‑profession exception bars Hernandez’s UDTP counterclaim	Hospital’s conduct relates to medical/professional functions and is within the learned‑profession exemption	Alleged false inducements were commercial/business negotiations, not rendition of professional services; exception should not apply	Reversed directed verdict; UDTP claim should have been submitted to jury because dealings were business contract negotiations, not necessarily protected professional services
Whether parol evidence was improperly admitted so as to require a new trial	Communications were admissible for context and for fraud/UDTP counterclaims	Admission allowed jury to ignore the contract; verdict unsupported by contract terms	Argument not preserved: defendant failed to identify particular exhibits or make contemporaneous specific objections; issue waived
Scope of remedy if compromise found	New trial may be limited to damages only when separate	Defendant sought new trial on all issues	Court noted damages issue could be retried alone if warranted, but denied new trial here because liability findings were clear and complex evidence made compromise inference unsupported

Key Cases Cited

Worthington v. Bynum, 305 N.C. 478 (discusses narrow appellate review of trial court’s denial/grant of new trial for compromise verdict)
Bartholomew v. Parrish, 186 N.C. 81 (example of obvious compromise verdict)
Robertson v. Stanley, 285 N.C. 561 (gross inadequacy of damages may indicate compromise requiring new trial)
Smith v. White, 213 N.C. App. 189 (verdict amount alone insufficient to prove compromise verdict)
Cameron v. New Hanover Mem’l Hosp., 58 N.C. App. 414 (learned‑profession exception applies where hospital actions were integral to assuring professional care)
Wheeless v. Maria Parham Med. Ctr., Inc., 237 N.C. App. 584 (broad application of learned‑profession exception to medical‑board complaints integral to care)
Reid v. Ayers, 138 N.C. App. 261 (two‑part test for learned‑profession exception: actor is member of learned profession and conduct is rendition of professional services)
Piedmont Triad Reg’l Water Auth. v. Lamb, 150 N.C. App. 594 (verdict dollar amount alone cannot establish compromise or quotient verdict)