Radiation Oncology

Case

3:35 PM Section

Tyler Albert

Jacob Bakonyi

Brendan Campos

Logan Nickell

Norman Poklar

Jinwen Xie
What were the key/relevant facts of the radiation oncology case?
 The radiation oncology case presented many relevant facts to justify a court

case. The bad doctor, Dr. Wagih Shehata, ran a radiation oncology business with his

former partners, Dr. Sudha Mahalingam and Dr. Foroogh Jazy, the good doctors. After

many events, including the loss of their radiation therapist, Dr. Shehata and his partners

had agreed to the mutual dissolution of their business, including the sale of the building

and sale of the linear accelerator. Very shortly after the separation, the bad doctor

rebought the business, rehired the previously resigned radiation therapist, purchased

the businesss linear accelerator, and planned to run the business without informing the

good doctors or continuing the partnerships. Doctors Mahalingam and Jazy signed the

Agreement of Dissolution without this knowledge. In doing this, the bad doctor breached

his fiduciary duties to his partners, prompting the case.

How were they similar to the facts in Lavin? How were they different?

There were a few similarities between the Lavin case and the Radiation

Oncology case. In the Lavin case, a three-man partnership tax preparing business was

dissolved. The defendant, Ben Ehrlich, served notice to the two other partners, Lavin

and Dillworth, about his withdrawal from the partnership and the dissolution. In the

same month that Ehrlich withdrew, he turned around and signed a contract showing his

purchase of the storefront from the landlord. After the contract was signed, the

storefront title was in Ehrlichs name. The lease ran for a few more months, but when it

ran out, Ehrlich would not negotiate a new lease with his partners, because he

dissolved the lease. The plaintiffs both agreed that Ehrlich purchasing the lease meant

that he breached his fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs also felt that the property should be

held in constructive trust for the partnership. One difference between the two cases is
that Ehrlich also tried to take all the tax records and the client list after purchasing the

property, so he could run the business by himself. So the court ruled that all assets,

including the partnership and the list of all their customers and customer records, be

sold. Ehrlich was also forced to give up his title, right, and interest to the partnership if

offered two thirds of the purchase price.

Did I rely on the Lavin case in my MSJ? Heavily? Why? Why not?

I do believe you relied on the Lavin case in your MSJ. The case is mentioned

briefly in your arguments stating that this radiation oncology case mirrors the Lavins

case. You also related that in both cases fiduciary duty was breached by taking control

of the buildings lease without the other partner's knowledge. I believe you used the

Lavin case but did not use the case very heavily. I believe you did rely on it because it

contained basically the same situation that the radiation oncology case contained and

the case was decided with the winning outcome which you wanted to happen. You

could have relied more on it I believe but the reason I think you did not is because your

case did not have to be based solely on a case that happened in the past there were

different facts and evidence that could help your case more than precedents.

Did the Lavin decision influence the court's decision? Or not? Defend your

position.

The Lavin case did influence the court's decision. The court used precedent

when they were deciding the outcome of the radiation oncology case. In the Lavin case

the situation was very similar there were 3 partners a business and other material such

as the list of customer names and permissible records. The decision of the two cases

are the same Ehrlich and Shehata both were found guilty and had to sell their assets
and distribute the net proceeds to partners. The two found guilty must surrender their

right, title, and interest to the partners. The decision by the judge was basically the

same in both cases so stare decisis was used.

Is the principle governing partners' rights and obligations based in common law

or statutory pronouncements/legislation?

The principle governing partners rights and obligations are based in common

law. Common law is based on precedent, and the radiation oncology case used the

Lavin vs Ehrlich case. Statutory pronouncements/legislation is laws that were written

down by a body of legislature. There is no exact law written down by a body of

legislature stating that this situation is illegal and these are the consequences that will

happen because of it. In common law it is law that has been passed down through other

cases that have been similar and based on those cases a decision is made. The

governing partners rights obligations are based through common law using precedent

from past cases.

What were the plaintiffs' best arguments?

The plaintiffs have evidence on Dr. Shehata when he was prosecuted and he

said that he did not have any communication with his partners about purchasing the

Linear Accelerator. Q. Did you tell your partners during the week between July 7th and

July 14th that you had thought about purchasing the Linear Accelerator? A. No, there

was no communication. The plaintiffs best argument is based on the prosecution of

Dr. Shehata where he states that he was thinking about purchasing the Linear

Accelerator while not telling his partners. The plaintiffs also had proof of the agreement

that all of the partners would take their patients elsewhere to continue the practice. Dr.
Shehata said that he was dissolving the partnership just like his partners said they

would. Instead he was going to purchase the same space and use it for his own

practice.

What were the defendant's best arguments?

The defendants argument was that he calculated efforts for himself to take the

assets that belonged to all of the partners in WHROC and profit them in his new

business. He was able to secure the location without paying his partners. Dr. Shehata

fooled his partners into thinking that they all were agreeing to dissolve the partnership

and go out on their own in a different location. Really Dr. Shehata was able to get the

location and all assets by tricking his partners.

What facts was I able to develop in depositions, written discovery, and other

discovery devices that helped my clients case?

You did a great job developing and providing the facts to help your client's case

through depositions, written discovery, and other discovery devices. You were able to

provide precedent cases like Lavin v. Ehrlich, Hooper v. Yoder, Steeby v. Fial, Bovy v.

Graham and other cases that dealt with partnership affairs that violated their fiduciary

duties. You also used the answers from the bad doctor to the questions that were

asked about the events that occurred in the summer of 1998. You also used clear facts

in regards to the Agreement of Dissolution which the bad doctor, had unfaithfully

breached and the effort he made in purchasing the linear accelerator, rehiring the only

radiation therapist, Ms. Fontane Atha and signing the new lease to the same building

that was previously used by the partnership. The use of the bad doctors deposition on

page 4 and 5 of the Memorandum in support of the plaintiff was a great source of facts
that showed that the bad doctor had breached his fiduciary duties. Lastly, you also

used the written letters from the bad doctor to Mr. Shipman and Mr. Pulcrano

mentioning his ownership to Crookshank Cancer Center

How did these facts help us win? Explain fully.

These facts were key to your cases victory. The precedent cases gave the

court's previous decisions on the topics similar to this case in the event of a partner's

violation towards their fiduciary duties. The provided answers from the bad doctor

helped you win the case because he admits to the court that he did not communicate

with the other doctors that he was purchasing the linear accelerator, rehiring the

radiation therapist and signing the new lease to the building. This was clearly an act of

trickery, and as you said, only Dr. Shehata will benefit and profit from the business that

his partners helped build and the partners have nothing while the bad doctor has

everything. The answers also show that the bad doctor had acted with intent. Using the

bad doctors deposition also shows that the partnership was going to dissolve and the

letters to Mr. Shipman and Mr. Pulcrano reveal that the bad doctor had shortly regained

the business for himself.

Were there any facts that were disputed in the MSJ? Was that important to the

court? Why? Why not?

Yes, there were facts that were disputed in the Motion for Summary Judgment.

No one knows anything about Dr. Shehatas idea about getting a new lease and own it

by herself. It is not important to the court, because Dr. Shehata was lying to her partners

about leasing the company. In order for Dr. Mahalingam and Dr. Jazy to oppose the
motion, they need to present the judge with evidence that a jury could use to find in their

favor. Dr. Shehata is required to tell them about his plan, but he didnt.

Is there any way the plaintiffs could have prevented defendant/bad doctor from

doing what he did?

Attending the leasing meeting for the building might prevent Dr. Shehata from

doing what he did. They could have him to figure out who they are leasing to, and when

it will be settle down. It seems like Dr. Shehata finished everything for the other two

doctors in the article. Dr. Mahalingam and Dr. Jazy signed the leasing documents for

the building without knowing the leasing details. If they are more concern about this

action, they might find out the truth earlier. If Dr. Shehata has plan on doing that for long

time, he could have done it without the doubts from other doctors anyways. They are

partners, so they trusted each other. Somehow, Dr. Sudha Mahalingam and Dr.

Foroogh Jazy have trusted Dr. Shehata too much. The possibility of preventing is not as

high as we thought. Dr. Shehata could be even smarter on hiding things.

If you were the plaintiffs and you were faced with this situation, are there any

steps you could/would you have taken to prevent the bad things that happened

here from occurring?

If we were the plaintiffs in this situation, we would have taken a few steps in order

to prevent everything that happened from occurring. For one, we would have kept more

involvement in the process, preventing unethical practices from occurring. By leaving all

responsibility with the bad doctor, the good doctors were left unaware of the true actions

being taken. Perhaps it would also be beneficial to have a lawyer present during the
initial discussions of dissolution in order to prevent any unnoticed scheming, including

any conflicts with the radiation therapist and the sale of the machine.