Michelson

Michelson v. Hamada

Caution
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1090·29 Cal. App. 2d 1566·29 Cal. App. 4th 1566·36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 343·94 Daily Journal DAR 15182
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 27, 1994B049598California9,770 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hastings, J.

Introduction

Defendant and appellant James S. Hamada, M.D. (Hamada) and plaintiff and respondent G. Karlin Michelson, M.D. (Michelson), both of whom practice orthopedic surgery, entered into several agreements providing that Hamada would share his office facilities with Michelson and provide certain billing and other services through his office personnel in exchange for payment. Michelson came to believe that Hamada was diverting moneys due Michelson for professional services rendered to patients, and he filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud, among other causes of action. By special verdict, the jury found in favor of Michelson. The jury awarded damages of $140,000 for breach of contract, $500,000 for breach of fiduciary duty, and $500,000 for fraud. The jury further found that compound prejudgment interest should be assessed. In a separate phase of the trial, the jury awarded $1,250,000 in punitive damages.

After discharging the jury, the trial court ordered a total of $500,000 in actual damages, plus prejudgment interest “at the legal rate,” which it determined was 10 percent, compounded, and postjudgment interest at 10…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.