What was the ultimate ruling here? It seems like they are arguing for his performance pay above base, but that seems very small compared to the legal fees themselves?
The quick version is that he won some claims and lost some claims, but since wage statutes have a fee-shifting provision, he was able to recover attorney fees. Otherwise, his "win" would have cost him several hundred thousand dollars "net".
The performance pay - really patient satisfaction pay - said that he had to average over a certain level each quarter. The hospital refused to pay this bonus because he was slightly below that stipulated level in one quarter. He argued that if you average the quarters together, he was above the required level. The hospital argued - and the courts held - that the way the contract was written was that it required the average score
each quarter had to be above the negotiated level. Not the scores averaged over a year, or the length of the contract.
He also served as a medical director at a fixed hourly rate. The hospital refused to pay for certain hours because he did not provide documentation, and for other hours since they believed to have done so would have violated federal anti-kickback laws. The court held that the hospital was justified in not paying for the hours without documentation, but was required to pay him for the other set of hours. The trial judge and the appellate panel held that while the hospital's decision not to pay for the second set of hours was wrong, the decision was made in "good faith." This means the physician did not get double the amount of damages on this claim.
The key issue was "unpaid leave." The contract had a fixed base salary. It also said the physician was able to take eight days "unpaid leave" each year. The hospital calculated the daily rate of base pay, and then deducted eight days worth from his base salary since he took eight days of "unpaid leave." Both courts found that these provisions were in conflict with each other. However, a fundamental rule of contact law is that "ambiguities are resolved against the party that drafted the contract." In this case, the hospital. So the physician was entitled to be paid the eight days salary the hospital deducted from his base salary.
The most important issue was that the "Indiana Wage Payment Statute", like similar rules in other states, allows a prevailing party to recover attorney fees from the losing party. Without this, the physician would have received less than $100K in damages, but would have had a net loss of over $100K once his attorney fees were factored in.
The primary legal issue the appellate court - this opinion - faced was what to do in a case where each party wins on some claims and loses on others. The appellate court held that it was not an "abuse of discretion" for the trial court to award the physician his full fees and to not require him to pay any to the hospital. The court held that it wouldn't have been wrong for the trial court to have determined otherwise, but the decision it reached also wasn't wrong.
I would not at all be surprised if the Indiana Supreme Court did take up this case to clarify this legal issue. The odds are against it ... but I would not be surprised. (And what do I know?)
This is why you get an attorney to review a contract. Not that they will be able to change anything, but to tell you what it actually means. Or more specifically, how a court will determine what it actually means.
