Case Title: Neel v. Sun

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 88-408


Harley Neel, M.D.                            Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Caledonia Superior Court

Edward Sun, M.D. and Kathleen Sun            November Term, 1990


John P. Meaker, J.

James C. Gallagher of Downs Rachlin & Martin, St. Johnsbury, for plaintiff-
  appellee

Williams and Green, Morrisville, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Peck, J. (Ret.),
          Specially Assigned


     DOOLEY, J.   This is a declaratory judgment action stemming from the
dissolution of a professional partnership.  Defendant, Edward Sun, M.D.,
appeals from the superior court's order determining the assets and
liabilities of the partnership, claiming error in (1) the composition of the
court during pretrial hearings, the trial, and post-trial proceedings; (2)
the court's findings with respect to certain partnership property; and (3)
the admission of certain evidence.  We affirm.
     Plaintiff, Harley Neel, M.D., and defendant formed a partnership for
the practice of radiology in 1975.  There was no formal partnership
agreement.  They practiced at the Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital
(NVRH) in St. Johnsbury, Copley Hospital in Morrisville, and Cottage
Hospital in Woodsville, New Hampshire.  The partnership leased a
computerized axial tomograph (CAT) scanner from General Electric Company,
and a room at NVRH in which to operate the CAT scanner.  By 1981, the
partnership relationship had soured, and at the end of September 1982, the
partnership terminated.  Plaintiff commenced this action in 1982 to resolve
post-termination disputes.  Defendant counterclaimed for an accounting.
     The superior court held several preliminary hearings between November
1982 and December 1984.  Both assistant judges participated in an October 7,
1983 hearing on miscellaneous procedural motions.  One assistant judge
participated in a status conference and a hearing on a discovery matter held
on December 12, 1984.  Both assistant judges sat in the trial on the merits
held on May 6 and 7, 1985, and joined in the resulting findings and order,
which resolved some issues and referred the remaining issues to a master
with instructions. The master reported in 1987 and at the November 1987
hearing on the report, defendant moved to dismiss the entire proceeding
because assistant judges had sat on the 1985 hearing on the merits.  The
court denied the motion but dismissed the assistant judges from sitting at
the hearing on the master's report.  The final judgment order, issued in
1988, was signed only by the presiding judge.
     Defendant first argues that the participation of assistant judges in
the various proceedings constituted grounds for a new trial because this is
an action in equity.  Defendant relies on our decision in Soucy v. Soucy
Motors, Inc., 143 Vt. 615, 619-20,