Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02587/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02587-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bassam Assaf
Appellant
Trinity Medical Center
Appellee

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 15‐2587

BASSAM ASSAF,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

TRINITY MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Central District of Illinois.

No. 4:10‐cv‐04021‐JES— James E. Shadid, Chief Judge.

ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 2016 — DECIDED MAY 6, 2016

Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit

Judges.

ROVNER, Circuit Judge.  This is the second appeal by Dr.

Bassam Assaf concerning his breach of contract action against

Trinity Medical Center(“Trinity Medical”). From 2005 to 2009,

Assaf was employed by Trinity Medical as its medical director

for the epilepsy clinic. Trinity Medical terminated his employ‐

ment in August 2009, and Assaf filed an action for breach of

Case: 15-2587 Document: 32 Filed: 05/06/2016 Pages: 5
2 No. 15‐2587

contract on February 1, 2010. The parties entered into a

settlement agreement on February 26, 2010,under whichAssaf

would be employed by Trinity Medical from 2009 until at least

2011 in the position of Director of the Neuroscience Program.

Although the agreement was signed by both parties, the

employmentrelationshipnevermaterialized, andAssaf sought

summary judgment on his claim for breach of that settlement

agreement. The district court granted summary judgment and

the parties prepared fortrialregarding damages. Assaf sought

as damages the lost salary for the years in which he was to

have been employed under the settlement agreement, as well

as lost professional fees during that time. The district court

rejected the claim for lost professional fees holding that Assaf

failed to provide an adequate estimate of the loss during

discovery. The district court then entered judgment without

trial awarding Assaf his salary forthe years 2009 through 2011

and compensatory damages totaling $172,759 plus $15,000 in

attorneys’ fees.

Assaf filed what would be the first of two appeals to this

court, contesting the court’s refusal to allow damages relating

to lost professional fees. We reversed the district court on that

issue, holding that Assaf had presented a computation of his

lost professional fees, with supporting evidence, after discov‐

ery but before the preparation of any pretrial order, and that he

therefore should have been allowed to proceed with that claim

for damages. Assaf v. Trinity Medical Center, 696 F.3d 681, 686‐

87 (7th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we reversed the district court’s

order barring evidence of lost professionalfees, and remanded

the case forthe court to properly ascertain Assaf’s damages.Id.

at 687.

Case: 15-2587 Document: 32 Filed: 05/06/2016 Pages: 5
No. 15‐2587 3

On remand, Assaf proceeded to a jury trial on his claim for

lost professional fees. Assaf sought to establish that his

professionalfees from EEG video monitoring and follow‐up of

epilepsy patients decreased as a result of Trinity Medical’s

failure to rehire him as required by the settlement agreement,

because his relationship with Trinity Medical was a driving

factor in such referrals. The court used a verdict form asking

the jury “Did Dr. Assaf prove that he sustained damages as

explained in these instructions”“ to which the jury responded

“No.” Judgment was entered for Trinity Medical and the

district court denied Assaf’s subsequent motion for a new trial.

Assaf now appeals that determination.

Assaf asserts that the district court erred in numerous

evidentiary rulings,including the admissionoftestimony from

Trinity Medical’s expert, the admission of a number of exhibits

by Trinity Medical, and the allowance of testimony relating to

disputes andlitigationinvolvingAssaf andhis former employ‐

ers. In addition, Assaf argues that the court erred in determin‐

ing that the damages sought for the loss of professional fees

were consequential rather than direct damages. We need not

address these challenges, however, because Assaf’s arguments

to this court on appeal establish that he has no valid claim to

damages for lost professional fees, and therefore the alleged

errors—even if established—are harmless.

As the party seeking to recover damages, Assaf bears the

burden of proving that he did, in fact, suffer actual damages

and must establish a reasonable basis for computation of those

damages. TAS Distrib. Co. v. Cummins Engine Co., 491 F.3d 625,

632 (7th Cir. 2007); Merry Gentleman, LLC v. George & Leona

Prods., Inc., 799 F.3d 827, 830 (7th Cir. 2015); Pamado, Inc. v.

Case: 15-2587 Document: 32 Filed: 05/06/2016 Pages: 5
4 No. 15‐2587

Hedinger Brands, LLC, 785 F. Supp. 2d 698, 708 (N.D. Ill. 2011).

Although we held in our earlier opinion that Assaf could bring

a claim for the loss of professional fees, that opinion merely

addressed whether Assaf had timely submitted computations

establishing the amount of professional fees at issue. Assaf,

696 F.3d at 686‐87. That appeal did not present the issue as to

whether Assaf had evidence that he actually incurred those

losses.

Assaf’s claim for the loss of professional fees was based on

the allegation that his practice experienced a decrease in

referrals and corresponding loss of fees as a result of Trinity

Medical Center’s breach of contract. According to Assaf, those

professional fees were generated when he performed services,

and the breach of contract caused a decrease in referrals and

corresponding decrease in professional fees.

The problem with this claim, however, is that those

professional fees were not paid to Assaf. The fees were paid

directly to the practice, and Assaf concedes on appeal that he

had no ownership interest in that practice and that the fees did

not accrue to him personally. Assaf acknowledges that because

of his immigration status, the practice is owned by his wife not

by him. Moreover, Assaf does not claim that his salary or other

compensation was affected by the alleged decrease in profes‐

sional fees. In fact, in his brief and at oral argument, he

conceded that he is not claiming a loss of income. Therefore,

Assaf is attempting to claim damages for a loss of professional

fees to the practice, and to his wife as owner of that practice,

which did not adversely impact his own income. His wife is

not a party to this action, and Assaf has failed to establish that

he, as opposed to his wife orthe practice, experienced any loss

Case: 15-2587 Document: 32 Filed: 05/06/2016 Pages: 5
No. 15‐2587 5

of professionalfees.In fact, on appeal he asserts that it does not

matter where the fees would have gone, but only that they

were generated by his performance of services. But Assaf

received a salary for those services which was unchanged

throughout the time period at issue, and he denies on appeal

that his salary or income was adversely affected by the loss of

fees. In short, he provides no argument to differentiate himself

from any employee of a business, and asserts no basis for

allowing such an employee to recover damages for lost profits

of a business in which the employee has no ownership orlegal

interest and in which the employee alleges no impact on his

own compensation. Assaf has failed to argue that he has any

interest in the professional fees for which he seeks damages. If

he were able to prove any errors in the trial, a dubious proposi‐

tion in itself, those errors would be harmless because his

admissions establish that he in fact suffered no loss of profes‐

sional fees. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-2587 Document: 32 Filed: 05/06/2016 Pages: 5