In May 2010, plaintiff Chad Goodman, M.D., an interventional radiologist, was terminated by his medical group, California Advanced Imaging Medical Associates Inc. Goodman had been employed by the medical group since 2001, with privileges at Marin General Hospital and Novato Community Hospital, both Sutter Health facilities. Goodman sued Sutter Health, Sutter Health Pacific and Sutter West Bay Hospitals. Goodman alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted intentional interference with a contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of California Health & Safety Code § 1278.5. It was ultimately determined that Sutter Pacific was a wrong Sutter entity, and it was dismissed from the case. Thus, matter continued against Sutter Health and Sutter West Bay Hospitals only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that in May 2010, administrators at Sutter Health pressured California Advanced Imaging Medical Associates to terminate Goodman’s employment because Goodman had engaged in patient advocacy. Specifically, counsel contended that Sutter Health pressured the medical group to terminate Goodman because he had protested Novato Community Hospital’s protocol of transferring all stroke patients to California Pacific Medical Center, another Sutter Health facility, as opposed to Marin General Hospital, the closest accredited stroke facility, because Marin General Hospital was leaving the Sutter Health network. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendants did so in order to keep patients within the Sutter Health network, even though Marin General Hospital was significantly closer to Novato Community Hospital than California Pacific Medical Center and did not require a trip over the Golden Gate Bridge. Defense counsel argued that Sutter Health’s administrators never interfered with Goodman’s employment with California Advanced Imaging Medical Associates and that Goodman was terminated due to a lack of insight and poor judgment, not because of any pressure from Sutter Health. Counsel also denied the existence of any protocol requiring stroke patients to be transferred to California Pacific Medical Center. In addition, counsel for Sutter Health argued that Sutter Health was just a holding company of Sutter West Bay Hospitals and that any alleged bad actions were done by employees or officers of Sutter West Bay Hospitals, not of Sutter Health., Goodman claimed that his termination caused him to lose income, benefits and investments and that this caused him to suffer emotional distress. Thus, Goodman sought recovery of $5 million to $30 million in economic damages for his loss of income, benefits and investments from his employment with California Advanced Imaging Medical Associates. He also sought recovery of roughly $3 million in damages for his emotional distress. In addition, Goodman sought recovery of between $60 million and $120 million in punitive damages. Defense counsel disputed Goodman’s alleged damages and argued that Goodman was terminated for legitimate business reasons at the discretion of the medical group.