Attorneys for the three, and possibly four, parties in the ongoing lawsuit over the operation of West Suburban Medical Center spent more than an hour haggling in court Tuesday morning with no resolution.
The hearing was both to address an emergency motion by landlord Ramco Healthcare alleging that Prasad is illegally removing medical equipment from Weiss Memorial and West Sub, and to hear arguments on Ramco’s motion to enforce a May 29 settlement agreement reached in Judge Patrick Stanton’s chambers.
Stanton continued the hearing to Sept. 11, after what devolved into an extended squabble over whether or not the 14-point late May agreement is legally binding and enforceable without a formal contract.
Howard Brookins, the replacement attorney for Resilience Healthcare, at one point told Stanton that he wanted an evidentiary hearing on the issue.
S & P Consulting president David Rosenfeld, who has appeared at court hearings the past three months, once again contended he is trying to intervene, despite having not yet filed a formal motion to do so.
Rosenfeld, who has taken over ownership of S&P, according to Illinois Secretary of State records, is seeking to recover $900,000 he said he spent operating the West Sub ER and a mental health center for several weeks in the spring of 2025. He insists he was given the right of first refusal by Prasad to contract for administering the West Sub ER.
“$900,000 I spent running the ER and mental health unit,” Rosenfeld said by Zoom. “I’ve spent money that’s just going to go out the window.” He called any ruling by the judge on Ramco’s motion to enforce the May 29 agreement “premature.”
A perturbed Stanton fired back, “How many times have I told you to file a motion to intervene?” The problem, Stanton told Rosenfeld, wasn’t that a ruling would be premature, but that Rosenfeld had “filed a procedurally defective motion.”
“You do not have a dog in this fight,” Stanton said. “I gave you the opportunity to follow the rules and you didn’t do it.”
Disagreement over settlement agreement
Stanton also appeared to be out of patience with the pace of reaching a resolution he said had already been reached months ago. Besides Rosenfeld, Prasad’s personal attorney, Travis Richardson and Brookins also objected to the motion to enforce the May 29 settlement.
Richardson said an “agreement in principle” is not necessarily a binding agreement. “The issue is, regarding the agreement, whether or not it’s a contract.”
Stanton disagreed, saying the agreement was negotiated in his presence, over four and a half hours, with Prasad in the room. When Richardson referred to the negotiated agreement as “hypothetical,” Stanton replied, “This isn’t a hypothetical. It happened.”
In a 20-page brief Brookins argued that the May 29 agreement was not final, was not a contract, and listed a litany of concerns over legal details. Brookins also alleged that Prasad was suffering from low blood sugar during the May 29 settlement conference and had not agreed to the terms.
“You’re saying Dr. Prasad didn’t agree,” Stanton asked Brookins. When Brookins said Prasad had a different understanding of what occurred, Stanton replied, “Then he wasn’t listening, because I know what I said.”
“Your client and his client reached an agreement that if Insight (Healthcare) makes an offer, he will accept it,” Stanton said, reiterating, “It’s an agreement between Resilience and Ramco, ‘If (Insight) makes an offer, he will accept it.’”
Stanton also refuted Brookin’s contention that any specific concerns over the wording of the 14-point terms of agreement were never voiced, saying, “You’ve never identified the material terms that are not acceptable to (Prasad).”
“If it’s just in principle, there’s a problem, judge,” Richardson told the judge.
“I’m going to have to change the way I do my job,” Stanton replied. “I do think if that becomes the rule, there’ll be no more settlement conferences.”
“They won’t mean anything,” Stanton said. “(People can just say), “I don’t care if I reached an agreement, I’m reneging.”
Stanton reiterated that the issue before him for a ruling is limited to the agreement between Resilience and Ramco, saying “I’m just deciding whether Resilience is bound to receive the offer from Insight.”
“I think what you’re suggesting is agreements reached before a judge aren’t enforceable” Stanton said.
“You made a statement that (Prasad) didn’t think he had a deal,” Stanton told Brookins. “That’s news to me, as I sat there and talked to him for hours.” He added, “In every subsequent hearing, not once did anyone say, ‘That’s not what we agreed to.”
At one point Brookins said, “I never saw the agreement,” to which Stanton replied, “Just because you haven’t read it doesn’t mean your client hasn’t agreed to it.”
Brookins then seemed to contradict himself, saying, “I have seen it, and it’s not acceptable to my client.” He then told Stanton that he had “reached out and have not had a conversation with Insight Healthcare.”
That led Kaplan to interject, “As I’ve told (Brookins) many times, I don’t represent Insight, I represent Ramco.”
Prasad removing equipment
In their emergency motion, Ramco asked that Prasad and Resilience be held in contempt of court for removing equipment from Weiss and West Sub despite Stanton’s order that “Resilience shall not make any transfers outside the normal course of business without the consent and approval of the Special Master.”
Ramco attached an affidavit from Erin Borders, the former head of operations for Resilience Healthcare, that she had received numerous reports that Prasad had directed West Sub employees to inquire into costs for moving items with U-Haul, and had directed security at Weiss Memorial Hospital to allow a U-Haul vehicle to load equipment at the hospital loading dock.
That equipment, Ramco alleged, was “including but not limited to computers and monitors, an examination table, three blood pressure machines, five ultrasound units, and eight chairs.”
Borders, who worked for Resilience for “approximately three years” before being terminated on June 26, said she’s stayed in touch with numerous subordinates still employed at the hospitals.
Kaplan said he emailed Brookins to confirm, but that Brookins did not respond to either e-mails or phone messages.
Brookins admitted in court Aug. 25 that items were in fact being transferred from the hospitals, but said the transfers were within the hospital system, relocated “spot to spot within the company.”
“We’ve been asking for confirmation for three weeks,” said Kaplan, who provided an email string to the court.
Stanton appeared to side with Kaplan, telling Brookins, “He asked you a question and you ignored it.” But he declined to issue a ruling, instead instructing Brookins to work with Ramco.
“Take it seriously, or we’ll have our emergency hearing,” Stanton said. “Talk to each other. If it’s that simple, we don’t (need a hearing).”