Several things come to mind when reading about the Bush trial:

 

1. Having an admitted strong bias against OCA and in favor of affiliated doctors, I'm disappointed along with US Bowl about OCA winning anything.  However, if you put the $4.2 million owed OCA in context, and assuming that Dr. Bush has 13 offices, that's only about $323,000 per office - much less than the value of a busy office.  Given the fact that he's current advertising for associates to help him, it sounds like things are plenty busy.

 

2. In item #2 in OCA blog post, they indicate that the New Orleans bankruptcy judge found that OCA hadn't overcharged Dr. B under their secret "corporate allocations" charges.  Courts in Hobson and Namay have found just the opposite.  There are other cases which have settled out of court by OCA rather than risk having the corporate allocations mark-ups be affirmed.  One victory hardly constitutes case law!  Many feel that the judge in this case is strongly biased toward OCA, meaning an appeal may well succeed if Dr. B decides on that course of action.

 

3. In item #6, OCA acknowledges that Bush won a Breach of Contract against them, but conveniently neglected to elaborate on the meaning of that victory.  I believe that a Breach of Contract means that the doctor no longer has to perform under that contract. So even though he has to repay OCA the money they loaned him to get the offices opened, he no longer has to perform in the future - a victory worth many, many millions of dollars in "service fees" and perhaps other charges over the life of the contract or Business Services Agreement.  SErvices?  Hmmm -  Isn't that what they call it when a milk cow is taken to a stud bull to be "serviced"  Sounds a lot like what OCA likes to do to their doctors!

 

Of course that's entirely my own, personal opinion, based on how I was "serviced" when I was an affiliate.

 

(CONTINUED)