Facts

On March 24, 2006, defendant Dr. Gediz Barnar, D.D.S., sold his dental practice to plaintiff Dr. Mehri Safari for $780,000. The plaintiff hired a consultant, Dr. Ramsey Ezaky to assist her in evaluating the practice along with a broker, CPA and attorney. The defendant gave plaintiff and her consultant's unfettered access to the practice for approximately four months prior to signing the purchase agreement, in addition to receiving patient charts, billing records and income and expense information.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the defendant misrepresented the income of the practice and misrepresented the number of patients. Plaintiff also claimed that defendant billed for dental work that was never performed, billed inaccurately, forgave co-pays to maintain patients and inflated the value of the equipment sold to plaintiff.

Dr. Thornton A. D'Arc, D.D.S., testified that the defendant artificially inflated the revenue of the dental practice by billing insurance providers for services that were not performed or improperly billed for services provided. He also testified that the defendant forgave co-pays to maintain clients and misrepresented the number of patients, the value of the equipment and the value of the good will of the dental practice sold to plaintiff.

Philip Lieberman, CPA, testified that the actual sale of the practice was only $400,000, as opposed to $825,000 as represented by the defendant. He also testified that the practice had no good will or other intangibles.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that he provided all accurate financial information to the plaintiff; he never forgave co-pays; and no insurance carrier ever complained of defendant's billing practices. While there may have been some billing errors, the defendant did not misrepresent any of the financial information to plaintiff. The plaintiff and her advisors had unfettered access to the practice prior to purchase.

The defendant contended that plaintiff's experts relied on a small sample of files and information supplied by the plaintiff to reach their conclusions. The plaintiff's expert gave little support for their contention that defendant inflated the value of the equipment sold to plaintiff.

Regarding plaintiff's expert Dr. D'Arc, defendant argued that he was not an expert in microdentistry, which accounted for why certain dental work performed by defendant was not visible on an x-ray.

Damages

The plaintiff asked for $640,000 in special damages and $2 million in punitive damages.

Result

After a five-day trial, the court found in favor of the defense. No damages were awarded.