Erinakes v. Zahreddine, C.A.No. KC 2001-254 (R.I. Super 3/26/2009)
| Decision Date | 26 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | C.A.No. KC 2001-254. |
| Parties | CHRISTOS ERINAKES, MD v. NABIL ZAHREDDINE, MD |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
The matter before the Court involves a contract dispute between Christos Erinakes, MD, (Plaintiff) and Nabil Zahreddine, MD, (Defendant). Plaintiff has brought suit against Defendant for amounts owed for various expenses over a three (3) year period. Plaintiff bases his claim on an allegation of a contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant covering the years 1995, 1996 and 1997. Defendant denies any contractual liability and counterclaims for amounts allegedly owed to him by Plaintiff. The action was tried to the Court sitting without a jury over some twenty-seven days1 on May 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 28, 29, 30, and June 2, 3, 4, 9,10, 11, 12, 23, 24, 26, and July 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 29, and September 29, 2008. Over the course of trial, the Court heard from fifteen different witnesses2 and received one hundred and one (101) full exhibits from the Plaintiff and Defendant.3 The Decision has been organized to provide a background for the reader considering the large number of exhibits entered, the lengthy testimony, and the issues to be decided in the case
In a non-jury trial, the standard of review is governed by Super. R. Civ. P. Rule 52(a). The Rule provides that "in all actions tried upon the facts without a jury . . . the court shall find the facts specifically and state separately its conclusions of law thereon . .. ." Accordingly, "the trial justice sits as a trier of fact as well as of law." Hood v. Hawkins, 478 A.2d 181, 184 (R.I. 1984). In a non-jury trial, "determining the credibility of [the] witnesses is peculiarly the function of the trial justice." McEntee v. Davis, 861 A.2d 459, 464 (R.I. 2004) (quoting Bogosian v. Bederman, 823 A.2d 1117, 1120 (R.I. 2003)). This is so because it is "the judicial officer who [actually observes] the human drama that is part and parcel of every trial and who has had the opportunity to appraise witness demeanor and to take into account other realities that cannot be grasped from a reading of a cold record." In the Matter of the Dissolution of Anderson, Zangari & Bossian, 888 A.2d 973, 975 (R.I. 2006).
Although the trial justice is required to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, "brief findings will suffice as long as they address and resolve the controlling factual and legal issues." White v. Le Clerc, 468 A.2d 289, 290 (R.I. 1983); Super. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Accordingly, a trial justice is not required to provide an extensive analysis and discussion of all evidence presented in a bench trial. Donnelly v. Cowsill, 716 A.2d 742, 747 (R.I. 1998). See also Anderson v. Town of East Greenwich, 460 A.2d 420, 423 (R.I. 1983). Competent evidence is needed to support the trial justice's findings. See Nisenzon v. Sadowski, 689 A.2d 1037, 1042 (R.I. 1997). Moreover, the trial justice should address the issues raised by the pleadings and testified to during the trial. Nardone v. Ritacco, 936 A.2d 200, 206 (R.I. 2007). However, a trial judge sitting as a finder of fact need not categorically accept or reject each piece of evidence or resolve every disputed factual contention. Notarantonio v. Notarantonio, 941 A.2d 138, 147 (R.I. 2008) (quoting Narragansett Electric Co. v. Carbone, 898 A.2d 87, 102 (R.I. 2006)).
This segment of the Decision is not intended to replace the comprehensive stenographic record nor the copious notes taken by the Court during the trial. The sole purpose of this particular section is to give a general summary and overview of the testimony of the various witnesses regarding the issues framed in the case. Specific portions of a particular witness's testimony and particular findings of fact and credibility determinations will be addressed in other parts of this Decision and may not appear in this summary overview.
Plaintiffs witnesses:
1. Walter Gendreau: Mr. Gendreau testified as an accountant who was formerly employed by the Plaintiff. He testified that he managed cash disbursements and receipts, did not have overall responsibility for the practice, but had management oversight. He had limited interaction with vendors, paid bills and constructed the general ledger according to his testimony. He stated that he worked with Defendant on occasion and showed Defendant where documents were located. Several of the exhibits in evidence were introduced through Mr. Genrdreau.
2. Cecelia Louise Seippel: Ms. Seippel testified as a former employee of Plaintiff and a former employee of Lighthouse Medical Management. She testified that she worked on reports with Mr. Gendreau and gave Mr. Gendreau a monthly report of the medical practice. She testified that each doctor had his own bank account and she testified as to how the lab4 procedures worked at the medical practice.
3. Judith Aronson: Ms. Aronson testified as a former employee of the Plaintiff. She stated she was the office manager responsible for payroll, hiring, firing, and setting up procedures. She testified that she interacted with Defendant quite often and also with Mr. Gendreau. She testified that she put documents relating to the medical practice onto the computer for Mr. Gendreau. She testified that she was assigned to gather documents together for Defendant dealing with deliveries performed by Defendant. She testified that after compiling the list of deliveries, the list was placed on the computer. She further testified that the list was changed numerous times by Defendant. She testified that, at one point, she became aggravated with Defendant and all the changes to the list she was directed to make by the Defendant. She testified that she had gone to Plaintiff to advise him about and complain about the changes and was told by Plaintiff to do what Defendant asked. She testified that once all changes were made, both doctors told her to send the list to the hospital.
4. John Ledoux: Mr. Ledoux testified as a C.P.A.,(Certified Public Accountant). He testified that Plaintiff is his client and Mr. Gendreau was a former employee of his firm. He described Mr. Gendreau as the internal accountant for Plaintiff. He testified as to his efforts to arrive at a complete understanding between doctors as to what constituted expenses and how the calculations should be made under the agreements covering the relationship between doctors. Several exhibits were admitted during Mr. Ledoux's testimony.
5. Dr. Nabil Zahreddine: Dr. Zahreddine was called as an adverse witness by Plaintiff. He testified that he signed the contracts (Plaintiffs Ex.'s 1, 2, and 3). He testified that he did not protest Plaintiffs Ex. 46b with the hospital nor did he raise questions with Plaintiffs Ex.'s 46c or 46d. He also testified that Plaintiffs Ex.'s 46f, 46g, and 46h are accurate. Dr. Zahreddine testified as to his understanding of what the expenses (that he would contribute to) consisted of and denied ordering Ms. Aronson to make any changes to the list of his deliveries. Dr. Zahreddine testified that he was not allowed access to the books and ledgers of the medical practice and claims he was told that he could not bring in his own accountant to go over the books.
6. Dr. Christos Erinakes: Dr. Erinakes testified as to the recruitment process and reasons therefore related to bringing Dr. Zahreddine to the state. He testified as to the makeup of the contracts and his expectations. He testified as to the various agreements and exchanges with Defendant related to the medical practice. He testified that he never denied Dr. Zahreddine the opportunity to get an accountant to review the books of the medical practice.
7. David Terry: Mr. Terry testified as the Chief Financial Officer of Care New England Health Systems. This is the parent company for Kent County Memorial Hospital. (hereinafter simply Hospital). He testified that he was not familiar with the background details of the three-way agreement as it was already in existence when he began work at the hospital. He testified that he used the agreement when the hospital accounting department had to come up with final settlement figures for Defendant. Mr. Terry testified that he did not perform any of Plaintiff's calculations and Plaintiff was not involved in the final settlement between Defendant and the hospital. He testified as to various components of the final settlement between Defendant and the hospital.
Defendant's witnesses:
8. John Reis: Mr. Reis testified as a self-employed C.P.A., (Certified Public Accountant). He sat through Mr. Gendreau's testimony but not Mr. Ledoux's testimony. He gave his opinion based upon the documents in evidence and what he heard from Mr. Gendreau as to the proper calculations and final figures as related to the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant for the three years covered by the contracts.
9. Patricia Johnson: Ms. Johnson testified as a former employee of the medical practice. She testified that she performed general office duties and mainly worked the phones at the beginning of her employment. She testified that she reported to Ms. Aronson. She testified that when patients called, Ms. Aronson instructed her that unless the caller specifically asked for the Defendant, the caller was to be assigned to Plaintiff. She testified that she followed instructions and later told Defendant about the instruction she received.
10. Dr. Nabil Zahreddine: Dr. Zahreddine testified during his own case in chief. He testified about the arrangements between himself and the Plaintiff relative to payments for the deliveries he performed for Plaintiff. He denied that he ever agreed to any part of Plaintiff's Ex. 4 or Plaintiff's Ex. 4a (). He testified at length...
To continue reading
Request your trial