The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently upheld a 2007 decision by a Philadelphia trial court mandating that Penn pay Mark Helpin, former chairman of the Department of Pediatric Dentistry, $4.04 million for breaching their employment contract.
The lawsuit has been ongoing since 2005, when Helpin sued the University alleging he was forced to resign in 2004 after he was reassigned to a different position and his salary was reduced, a breach of his contract, he contended.
According to University spokeswoman Phyllis Holtzman, the University is assessing its options with the litigation.
"We are disappointed with the decision and are considering our appellate options," she wrote in an e-mail.
According to the opinion delivered by the Superior Court earlier this month, Helpin received a letter from the Penn School of Dental Medicine in September 1989 that offered him the faculty appointment as assistant professor of Pediatric Dentistry and director of the Division of Pediatric Dentistry in the Departmental Dental Care Systems.
The offer letter stated that Helpin was to be named chairman if the Dental School were to create a separate Department of Pediatric Dentistry.
In addition to specifying his starting annual salary of $60,000, the letter stated that the patient-care activities of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia would offer him the "opportunity for bonuses and salary increases, with 50 percent of CHOP Dental's net profits" available to him.
The letter assured Helpin that this financial opportunity would continue even if he were no longer serving as chairman or director of the Division.
But according to the court decision, when Marjorie Jeffcoat was hired as the Dean of Dental School in 2003, she removed Helpin as chairman and reassigned him to the Penn dental clinic in Bryn Mawr, Pa.
Helpin tendered his resignation in September 2004 but argued that it was forced upon him by the reduction of his overall compensation because of his reassignment, the decision stated.
He sued the University and the jury ruled in Helpin's favor after a three-week trial in June 2007.
But Penn did not rest easy with the jury's decision and filed an appeal in December 2007.
Penn argued in its appeal that the employment letter Helpin received did not constitute a valid contract because the offer letter was "far too ambiguous" to support a contract, according to the Court decision.
The University also contended that the amount of damages he was awarded was excessive.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania rejected these arguments, ruling that the Court finds "no merit in Penn's assertion that the evidence is legally insufficient to support contract formation."
The Court also concluded that the CHOP clinic "prospered" under Helpin's direction and "offered no indication that such prosperity would not have continued had Dr. Helpin been allowed to continue in his former capacity as the clinic's director."
In its opinion, the Court criticized Penn for its actions throughout the litigation, ruling that its statement on the case was "rife with contention" and "sharply skewed."
Comments
In a number of jurisdictions
In a number of jurisdictions in the United States, the Superior Court is a state trial court of general jurisdiction with power to hear and decide any civil or criminal action which is not specially designated to be heard in some other court bahamas vacation packages. California, Maine, the District of Columbia, and Georgia are all examples of such jurisdictions. Equivalent courts in other states are variously known as courts of common pleas, (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and others), circuit courts (Illinois, Michigan, Oregon and others), district courts (Louisiana, Texas, Hawaii and others) or, in the case of New York, supreme courts. The term "superior court" raises the obvious question of superior to what. Formerly all inclusive vacation, many jurisdictions had inferior trial courts of limited jurisdiction such as municipal courts, traffic courts, and justice of the peace courts, so it was natural to call the next level of courts "superior." However, some states, like California, have unified their court systems. In California, all lower courts were absorbed into the Superior Courts of California after 1998. The lower courts now exist only as mere administrative subdivisions of the superior courts. The superior courts are legally no longer superior to any other trial courts. Thus, the term "superior court" persists in California only as a matter of tradition. In Pennsylvania, the Superior Court is an appellate court golf vacation. In New Jersey, the Superior Court comprises trial courts of general jurisdiction, courts of equity, and an appellate division.