This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

This breach of contract action comes before the court for the third time in twenty-four years. P, a retired plastic surgeon, and D appeal, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of P following a hearing in damages. D claims that the trial court improperly (1) found that P was a lost volume seller under the circumstances of this case, (2) concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that P proved damages with reasonable certainty for the years 1984 through 1988, and (3) precluded evidence relevant to the determination of damages regarding the parties' reasonable expectations as to the length of their contractual relationship. P claims that the trial court improperly (1) calculated the damage award, (2) declined to award prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and (3) declined to award attorney's fees. In 1974, P was granted provisional clinical privileges as a member of the hospital's medical staff. In 1976, P was granted full clinical privileges as an assistant attending staff physician. P's privileges were renewed on an annual basis through 1983. P also had clinical privileges at [several] other area hospitals. 'In 1983, there were four plastic surgeons, including P, who worked in conjunction with D's emergency department. None were required to remain physically at the hospital while 'on call.' Three of the plastic surgeons who covered calls at D also simultaneously covered calls at other area hospitals. Each plastic surgeon was responsible for billing his patient or the patient's medical insurance for any services performed. P applied for the renewal of privileges for 1984. The medical staff declined to renew P's privileges for 1984. The board of trustees ratified the decision of the medical staff. In 1984, P's gross income was $225,815. In 1983, P earned $43,687 in gross income from services performed at D and $172,890 in gross income from all other services performed, including services performed at [the Bridgeport] hospitals, for a total gross income of $216,577. P brought the present action against D seeking damages and injunctive relief. An attorney trial referee concluded that an enforceable contract existed and that D had breached that contract by failing to follow the procedural requirements of its bylaws in declining to renew P's privileges. The trial court conducted a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy. The court declined to grant the injunctive relief because P failed to prove he had suffered irreparable harm or that he was without an adequate remedy at law. The court awarded P $1 as nominal damages, reasoning that the evidence adduced by P did not provide a basis for finding any economic loss or damages arising out of the hospital's breach of contract. The court held that P was not a lost volume seller inasmuch as he [had] provided personal services to the hospital and that, consequently, the doctrine of mitigation of damages applied. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's denial of injunctive relief but reversed that part of the judgment awarding nominal damages. It concluded that the lost volume seller theory can apply to personal service contracts such as the one between P and D. It held the trial court should have deemed P a lost volume seller and should have awarded him damages equal to his lost profits in 1984 only. D appealed. On appeal, the court noted that the issue of whether a party qualifies as a lost volume seller is one of fact. The evidence in the record was inadequate for the purpose of determining whether P had possessed the capacity and intent to perform under the contract with the hospital while simultaneously assuming an increased workload at the other hospitals. A remand for a new hearing was ordered to determine damages with due consideration of the lost volume seller theory. On remand, the trial court found that P was a lost volume seller and that P was not required to mitigate his damages. It held that P had proven lost profits for the years 1984 through 1988 with a reasonable degree of certainty and awarded him damages in the amount of $258,610 plus costs. This appeal followed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.