Hallman v. Zipperer-DavisHallman v. Zipperer-Davis
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 17, 2015
Barron, Peck, Bennie & Schlemmer, L.P.A., and Peter A. Burr, for Defendants-Appellees.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
FISCHER, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant G. Darryl Hallman, M.D., appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in a breach-of-contract action against defendants-appellees Millenium Radiology, Inc., its chief executive officer, and its individual shareholders (collectively, “MRI“).
Dr. Hallman‘s Claims against MRI and the Jury Trial
{¶2} Dr. Hallman, a radiologist, was employed by MRI under a series of written contracts that were automatically renewed on an annual basis subject to written notice of termination by either party. The parties executed the last of these agreements in June 2009.
{¶3} In January 2011, MRI‘s board of directors voted to terminate Dr. Hallman‘s employment. In June 2011, Dr. Hallman filed suit against MRI, asserting a number of causes of action including age discrimination, retaliation in violation of
{¶4} The case proceeded to a jury trial in 2014. The parties agreed to submit the issue of prejudgment interest on the contract claims to the jury. The court submitted a jury instruction on prejudgment interest to the jury without objection.
{¶5} The jury returned a verdict in favor of MRI on all claims except the breach-of-contract claims against MRI, Inc., for the 2007 and 2009 contracts. In a
{¶6} On July 29, 2014, three weeks after the jury had been discharged, Dr. Hallman filed a “motion for prejudgment interest on his breach of contract claims.” The trial court overruled the motion for prejudgment interest, concluding that the jury had considered the issue of interest by consent of the parties and that Dr. Hallman had failed to preserve any claim of error with respect to the jury‘s determination.
Prejudgment Interest and Waiver
{¶7} In a single assignment of error, Dr. Hallman contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for prejudgment interest.
{¶8}
{¶9} According to Dr. Hallman, the jury interrogatory in this case established that he was not awarded prejudgment interest and was therefore not fully compensated. MRI responds that the general verdict explicitly provided for prejudgment interest, and the jury award exceeded the amount of damages sought for the breach-of-contract claims themselves. Thus, MRI contends that Dr. Hallman was fully compensated under
{¶10} We agree with MRI that Dr. Hallman waived any claimed error concerning the jury award. Where there is a conflict between two general verdict forms or between a general verdict form and a jury interrogatory,
{¶11} In the case at bar, Dr. Hallman did not raise the issue of prejudgment interest when the jury returned its verdict and accompanying interrogatory. Instead, he waited until three weeks after the trial to raise the issue with the court. But after the jury had been discharged, the trial court was no longer afforded the option of requiring further deliberations to resolve the apparent conflict between the verdict and the interrogatory. Therefore, Dr. Hallman waived any error with respect to the jury‘s alleged failure to award prejudgment interest, and we overrule the assignment of error.
Conclusion
{¶12} We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
CUNNINGHAM, P.J., and STAUTBERG, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.