PDG sought $67 million in future damages for tortious interference and $11.5 million in damages regarding payment of excess and fees, which was based on damage projections calculated by accountant Arthur Cobb. PDG also sought approximately $9 million to $10 million in damages that were related to improper calculations of fees that were paid to PDHC over a number of years. This range was calculated by accountant Gregory Hirsch.

Plaintiff PDG P.A. was a dental group comprised of 115 doctors who practiced in 31 clinics throughout the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Plaintiff Dental Specialists of Minnesota P.A. was also a dental group that provided specialized dentistry (i.e., prosthodontistry) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Both plaintiffs are collectively referred to as "PDG."
In 1996, PDG entered into a contractual relationship with PDHC - the Minneapolis-based administrative service provider and a subsidiary of the administrative service provider American Dental Partners Inc. (ADPI) of Wakefield, Mass., in which PDG agreed to pay PDHC certain fees in exchange for non-dental administrative services, including billing, payroll and bookkeeping services.
PDG alleged that around 2004, PDHC began unilaterally taking over more and more aspects of the business relationship that were designated to the authority of doctors (i.e., management of the clinics).
PDG attributed the deterioration of the contractual relationship with PDHC to, among other things, the 2004 departure of founding doctor Greg Swenson, president of both PDG and PDHC, who ensured appropriate decisions were made and executed. PDG claimed that once Swenson left the position, PDHC didn't have licensed dentists in official decision-making capacities which in turn caused PDHC to overstep its authority.
After PDG terminated its service agreement with PDHC on March 28, 2007, which was made effective at that year's end, it claimed that PDHC and ADPI engaged in efforts to interfere with PDG's ability to transition to new clinics and locations, including recruiting PDG's dentists for a new professional association supported by ADPI, contacting PDG vendors, and refusing to provide a copy of patient electronic dental records.
PDG and Dental Specialists sued PDHC and America Dental Partners, claiming breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference and fraud.
Plaintiffs' counsel argued that state law dictates that only licensed dentists, and not non-dentist service providers, could engage in activity assigned to dentistry, including managing clinics. Therefore PDHC violated state law and the parties' contract.
Plaintiffs' counsel argued that PDHC breached the amended and restated service agreement, dated Jan. 1, 1999, which it had with PDG, and that the PDHC breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with PDG.
Plaintiffs' counsel argued that PDHC and ADPI tortiously interfered with PDG's contractual relationships with its doctors, and that they tortiously interfered with PDG's prospective advantage with doctors, patients, Patterson Dental and/or Signature Capital after the service agreement termination. Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the defendants interfered with the plaintiffs attempt to utilize Patterson Dental as a supplier. In addition, the defendants interfered with the prospective business relationship between the plaintiffs and financer Signature Capital.
Plaintiffs' counsel contended that the defendants defamed them by printing false statements regarding PDG's allegations of tortious interference and litigation regarding PDG doctors. Plaintiffs' counsel argued that PDHC and ADPI breached their fiduciary duty to PDG arising out of the borrow-lender relationship.
The defendants denied the allegations. Defense counsel counterclaimed that PDG wrongfully terminated the service agreement that it had with PDHC and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with PDHC. PDHC maintained that PDG failed to disclose material facts to PDHC that it had a duty to disclose, and that PDG falsely represented past and present material facts to PDHC.
(Steve Williamson was a former employee of PDHC who left to work for PDG in 2007.) ADPI argued that the information in Williamson's possession from ADPI, when he joined PDG, constituted a trade secret and confidential information, and that PDG breached the common law doctrine of confidentiality by acquiring the confidential information through a confidential relationship.
The defense contended that PDG suffered no damages, and as a result of plaintiff's wrongful termination of the contract, the defendants suffered $14 million to $89 million in damages. Accountant Donald Nicholson gave an opinion on the defendants' range of damages.
It found that PDHC breached its fiduciary duty as attorney-in-fact and caused $200,000 in damages.
The jury found that PDHC did not fail to disclose any material fact to PDG that it had a duty to disclose.
Jurors found that PDHC and ADPI committed tortious interference and that PDHC and ADPI were not justified in interfering with PDG's contractual relationships after the March 28, 2007, service agreement termination. The jury awarded PDG $33.5 million.
The jury found that PDHC and ADPI tortiously interfered with PDG's prospective advantage with doctors, patients, Patterson Dental and/or Signature Capital after the March 28, 2007, Service Agreement termination. Jurors found that PDHC and ADPI were not justified in interfering with PDG's prospective advantage after the terminated service agreement, and awarded the plaintiff $33.5 million.
Jurors found that PDHC and ADPI made the following communication about PDG: "PDG claims that we have interfered with its efforts to secure leases, bank financing and to negotiate with equipment vendors. This simply is not true." They found the communication was published (in 2007 via intranet) and that the communication was false. They found that the communication made by PDHC and ADPI affected PDG in its business, trade, profession, office or calling and awarded them $0.
The jury found that PDHC and ADPI made the following communication (in 2007 via intranet) about PDG: "Q: I heard that the doctors at PDG are being told by the directors of PDG that if they sign up with the new PA, PDG will sue them. Is this true? A: We have also heard this, but find it hard to believe that PDG [sic] take such questionable action. Furthermore, there is no legal basis for PDG to sue a doctor who signs up with the new PA?" The jury found that the communication was published and the communication false. The jury also found that the communication made by PDHC and ADPI affected PDG in its business, trade, profession, office or calling and awarded the plaintiff $177,250.
The jury found that PDHC and ADPI did not breach their fiduciary duty to PDG arising out of the borrow-lender relationship.
Jurors found that PDG did not breach the service agreement it had with PDHC and did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with PDHC. They found that PDG did not fail to disclose any material fact to PDHC that it had a duty to disclose, and that PDG did not falsely represent past or present material facts to PDHC.
The jury found that the information in Steve Williamson's possession from ADPI did not constitute a trade secret. It found that the information in Williamson's possession from ADPI did constitute confidential information. Jurors found that PDG did not breach the common law doctrine of confidentiality by acquiring the confidential information through a confidential relationship.
For punitive damages, the jury found that PDHC and/or ADPII, by tortiously interfering with PDG's contractual relationships, acted with deliberate disregard for the rights of PDG, and awarded the plaintiff $21,125,000 in damages. The jury found that PDHC and/or ADPI, by tortiously interfering with PDG's prospective advantage, acted with deliberate disregard for the rights of PDG, and awarded the plaintiff $21,125,000 in damages.
The jury found that PDHC and/or ADPI, by breaching its fiduciary duty as attorney-in-fact, did not act with deliberate disregard for the rights of PDG. It also found that PDHC and/or ADPI, by making defamatory statement(s), did not act with deliberate disregard for the rights of PDG.