Attorney David Steinfeld in the courtroom - Video 2
Video Description
In this video expert Florida business attorney David Steinfeld explains the background of the case and what evidence was presented at trial to the three appellate judges. Those judges ultimately ruled in favor of Mr. Steinfeld's clients and affirmed the trial court's final judgment that Mr. Steinfeld obtained for them.
Unlike a trial where witnesses testify and evidence is presented to a judge or jury, appeals are based on and limited to the record of trial. No witnesses testify and no new evidence is presented in the courtroom on an appeal. But it is helpful for the appellate judges to understand the context of how the lawsuit evolved and what the dispute was about.
Unlike a trial where witnesses testify and evidence is presented to a judge or jury, appeals are based on and limited to the record of trial. No witnesses testify and no new evidence is presented in the courtroom on an appeal. But it is helpful for the appellate judges to understand the context of how the lawsuit evolved and what the dispute was about.
Video Transcript
Let me back up to give you the clear overview. I know that Your Honors have read the record. My clients were invasive cardiovascular surgeons, one does the stints, one does the pacemakers. They were recruited to this area from Chicago. They were brought down by the hospital with a recruitment agreement and because the hospital cannot directly perform that action it's ordinary practice for them to place them and support them in a local practice that's how they connected with Florida Cardiovascular, worked at Florida Cardiovascular.
Trial testimony - Hospital CEO
Over the course of their time there it's clear and the judge found that they were not paid the salary that they were promised. That's not in dispute. At the end of 2007 Mr. Mikitarian who is the CEO of the hospital testified by deposition at trial and we had his actual calendar records showing that he met with both these parties separately and together to try to bring them together and have some kind of a orderly transition or resolution to their practice difficulties and differences. Then we have the testimony at trial from the CFO of the hospital who said he was directed by Mr. Mikitarian at the end of November or the beginning of December to start writing up an employment contract for these two physicians, my clients, starting January 1st 2008. So at that point the hospital who has somewhat of an interest in this but is not one of the parties is sensing that the parties are going to split apart and they want a fall back position they want to employ my clients at the hospital.
Trial testimony - medical practice office manager
Then we have the testimony of Florida Cardiovascular's very own office manager Patty Reisiger who said that on December 8th she got a phone call from someone at the hospital telling her that on January 1st my clients the Raos were going to be employed at the hospital and asking for her assistance as the office manager of Florida Cardiovascular to help in the transition and moving patient files and things like that and she said yes she would help with that. Then we have Dr. Matthews who at the time was an employee and was becoming one of the partners of Florida Cardiovascular. He testified that he was told by Dr. Mody that the Raos were no longer going to be at Florida Cardiovascular come January 1st 2008. And Dr. Matthews doesn't put the Raos on Florida Cardiovascular’s call schedule from January 1st 2008.
So if there's no meeting of the minds and these parties up until the end of December of 2007 have no idea whether the Raos are going to be there or not why isn't Florida Cardiovascular making a call schedule and including them on it. Why, as Judge Berger [Judge Wendy Berger] pointed out, why is Florida Cardiovascular changing its locks and locking my clients out so that they can't go in and get their personal products, personal property out of the offices because Florida Cardiovascular knew very well from its conversations with the hospital from everyone involved that my clients were going to start work at the hospital as employees on January 1st 2008.
So if there's no meeting of the minds and these parties up until the end of December of 2007 have no idea whether the Raos are going to be there or not why isn't Florida Cardiovascular making a call schedule and including them on it. Why, as Judge Berger [Judge Wendy Berger] pointed out, why is Florida Cardiovascular changing its locks and locking my clients out so that they can't go in and get their personal products, personal property out of the offices because Florida Cardiovascular knew very well from its conversations with the hospital from everyone involved that my clients were going to start work at the hospital as employees on January 1st 2008.
Trial testimony - medical practice owner
Then we come to Dr. Mody himself who was at that time the sole owner of Florida Cardiovascular. He testified as Judge Berger pointed out in his pretrial deposition he was asked by my co-counsel Mr. Levenstein was this agreed, was this a mutual termination that was going to happen on December 31st. He said ah-ha, which doesn't help anyone because it's not verbally recorded so Mr. Levenstein says yes which appears in the record yes question mark, Dr. Mody says yes. At trial he recants his testimony and he tries to double back from that when I challenged him on it and he says no, no, no this wasn't mutual I didn't really mean yes, I was just answering yes I was parroting yes, Mr. Levenstein asked me and I mumbled something and then he says yes and I just said yes, I randomly just parrot answers back to people and say yes.
Clearly when you read the record and you see the transcript and it goes on for about ten pages in the trial transcript Dr. Mody testified pre-trial that this was agreed, this was mutual, everyone including the hospital knew that the Raos were going to leave as of January 1st 2008. And then because that wouldn't help their position at trial Florida Cardiovascular then changes it and says no, we had no idea, they should be penalized and the money that we got, Florida Cardiovascular got from the hospital, under the recruitment agreement to pay these physicians their salary that Florida Cardiovascular kept because the judge found very clearly that they didn't pay the full salary so that means it wound up in someone’s pockets and it's not in the hospital it's not in the Raos’, so it's in Florida Cardiovascular's hands, Florida Cardiovascular should be allowed to keep that excess and be enriched by that amount and shouldn't have to pay it to anybody simply because they want to say they didn't know even though the evidence overwhelmingly is to the contrary.
Clearly when you read the record and you see the transcript and it goes on for about ten pages in the trial transcript Dr. Mody testified pre-trial that this was agreed, this was mutual, everyone including the hospital knew that the Raos were going to leave as of January 1st 2008. And then because that wouldn't help their position at trial Florida Cardiovascular then changes it and says no, we had no idea, they should be penalized and the money that we got, Florida Cardiovascular got from the hospital, under the recruitment agreement to pay these physicians their salary that Florida Cardiovascular kept because the judge found very clearly that they didn't pay the full salary so that means it wound up in someone’s pockets and it's not in the hospital it's not in the Raos’, so it's in Florida Cardiovascular's hands, Florida Cardiovascular should be allowed to keep that excess and be enriched by that amount and shouldn't have to pay it to anybody simply because they want to say they didn't know even though the evidence overwhelmingly is to the contrary.
