On February 6, 2009, Judge Vance found the OCA contracts in Massachussetts (OCA vs. Starr) and Florida (Cupo vs. OCA) to be illegal. 

 

In MA, OCA lists 4 offices.  Her honor found that since the contract was illegal, the court would "leave the parties where it found them," thus disallowing any possible OCA claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, fraudulent conveyance, etc.  OCA's website lists 4 offices in MA run by 3 different orthodontists.

 

In FL, I count OCA listing  25 offices run by Dr. Shoopak, 5 by Dr. Litowitz, 4 each by Drs. Kapley & Kopuri, 2 each by Drs. Montini and Protrover, and 2 office run by orthodontists as their sole location.  If my arithmetic is correct (never a sure thing,)  that's 44 locations.  (Feel free to verify directly - OCA's patient website is www.4braces.com.)  If OCA hopes to continue things in Florida, I'd think they'll have to re-negotiate any contracts not already redone?  I'd also think they'd be forced to renegotiate a much lower fee structure, thus hurting their cash flow?  (Since I'm not privy to any details, this is pure speculation on my part.)

 

There were two previous FL rulings in the Oulette and Yaffey cases which failed to find any illegality. However, Judge Vance believes that the fee split under the typical older OCA contract is sufficient grounds for a ruling of illegality despite the earlier rulings.

 

While the ruling on the Florida case invalidates the contract, a cursory reading didn't turn up any reference to an intent to "leave the parties where they are."  This might leave Dr. Cupo and others in Florida vulnerable to OCA claims for unjust enrichment, etc.?

 

I'm not a lawyer, and don't pretend to have the legal expertise to interpret or understand the rulings, which are available on PACER.  But as a lay person, I would think the rulings have hurt OCA significantly.

 

I'm told that due to more lenient Georgia law, Judge Vance has asked the parties there to have one more go at negotiating a settlemnt prior to the trial date.  If the case does go to trial, will that free Dr. Bush from his obligations?  (OCA was quite proud that Dr. Bush, a former member of OCA's Board of Directors, was forced back into complying with his BSA. It appears to have frightened some other docs into submission as well?)

 

Entirely my own, personal, non-lawyer's opinion.  Please verify things by reviewing the rulings on Pacer and/or consulting a licensed attorney able to better interpret the meaning of the recent rulings.