On Jan. 1, 2012, plaintiff Diana Blum, M.D., a neurologist, was elected to be a shareholder of Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, an affiliate of Sutter Health. She was previously hired by Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group to work at Palo Alto Medical Foundation as a shareholder-track doctor in the neurology department. However, she claimed that after she disagreed with, and refused to follow, various policies and practices that impacted her ability to provide appropriate medical care, she was forced to resign in October 2013. Blum sued Sutter Health, Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group Inc., and Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Blum alleged claims of retaliation in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 2056, breach of contract, unfair business practices, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and wrongful (constructive) termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that all three defendants were part of a “joint venture.” However, the court dismissed all the claims against Sutter Health and Palo Alto Medical Foundation on a motion for non-suit. The court also dismissed the retaliation and wrongful termination claims against Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group on a partial motion for non-suit. In addition, Blum voluntarily dismissed her claim of negligent interference with the prospective economic advantage prior to the case being sent to the jury. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group’s policies and practices included increasing productivity; reducing “leakage,” which was the referral of patients outside the Sutter Health Network; pressuring physicians to prescribe only generic medications, regardless of specific patient needs; prohibiting sample medications and auto-refills for chronic medications; and mandating certain “coding,” so as to increase the amount of money that is billed and collected from third-party payers. Counsel argued that Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group violated a California law and public policy that states that “a physician and surgeon is encouraged to advocate for medically appropriate health care” and that “no person shall terminate, retaliate against, or otherwise penalize a physician and surgeon for that advocacy.” Blum claimed that she was labeled a troublemaker, accused of “not being a team player”, and, ultimately, forced to resign. She also claimed that Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group breached her shareholder employment agreement by failing to provide her contact information to patients whom she treated at Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Defense counsel contended that Blum voluntarily resigned because she did not want to work in a group practice as part of a team with other physicians., Blum claimed that she suffered from garden variety emotional distress related to her alleged forced resignation. She also claimed that Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group interfered with her relationships with the patients whom she treated at Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Thus, Blum sought recovery of between $444,483 and $956,528 in lost income, and an unspecified amount for her lost benefits. She also sought recovery of non-economic damages for her emotional distress and the effects on her reputation. In addition, she sought recovery of punitive damages against Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group.