Liquidated Damages Provision

Jordan Uditsky • June 21, 2023

As is the case in every type of lawsuit, those involving breaches of a contract abide by the principle of “no harm, no foul.” That is, if a plaintiff suffered no damages due to the defendant’s alleged failure to follow the agreement’s terms, they simply have no claim. Courts are generally not in the business of vindicating principles, they are in the business of making wronged parties whole.

 

But proving the amount of actual damages incurred by a plaintiff due to a defendant’s breach of contract can often be harder than proving the breach itself. Demonstrating lost profits, missed opportunities, costs incurred, and other monetary consequences of the breach may require expert witnesses, extensive discovery, and other complicated economic evidence. All of this costs money and may or may not convince a judge or jury that the plaintiff should receive the amounts they claim they lost because of the breach. That is why many contracts, including employment agreements, contain what are called “liquidated damages” provisions.

 

What Is A Liquidated Damages Provision?

 

A liquidated damage provision in a contract is an agreement by the parties that a specified sum will constitute damages in the event of a breach, thus alleviating the need for the non-breaching party to prove actual damages.

 

In a dental employment agreement, for example, a provision may require the associate dentist to provide the practice owner with 90 days' notice of their intention to leave. The agreement may then include a liquidated damages clause in which the associate dentist agrees to pay the practice owner $500 a day for each day less than 90 that the dentist gives notice. It doesn’t matter whether the practice owner actually suffers any damages - that is what the associate agreed to pay for breaching the contract by providing late notice.

 

Reasonable Estimate Or Punishing Penalty? When Does a Liquidated Damages Provision Cross The Line?

 

Every state takes its own approach to the validity and enforceability of liquidated damages provisions, but no state prohibits liquidated damages entirely. Instead, judges in most states, including Illinois, analyze such provisions using a seemingly esoteric distinction: damages v. penalty. That is, does the agreed-upon sum constitute a reasonable estimation of hard-to-calculate damages that would arise from the breach, or is the amount a penalty designed to punish the breacher and deter violations? If a judge finds that the clause is the former, it is usually enforceable. But if it is deemed a penalty, it will likely be thrown out.

 

Illinois cases are generally illustrative of how judges make this critical distinction. In Illinois, courts will generally find a liquidated damages provision to be valid and enforceable so long as three requirements are met:

 

  • The parties intended to agree in advance to the settlement of damages that might arise from the breach;
  • the amount of liquidated damages was reasonable at the time of contracting, bearing some relation to the damages which might be sustained; and
  • actual damages would be uncertain in amount and difficult to prove.

 

Whether these criteria are met inherently involves a case-by-case analysis, but most challenges to the enforceability of a liquidated damages provision are based on the second listed factor: reasonableness and relation to what the actual damages caused by the breach might be. If a liquidated damages amount would result in a windfall for the plaintiff or is wildly disproportionate to any conceivable damages that could flow from the breach, it is likely to be considered a penalty and thus invalid.
 

Going back to the dental employment agreement with its $500 per day in liquidated damages for late notice of resignation, it is questionable whether such a sum bears a sufficient relation to the actual damages the practice owner would sustain for losing a few days’ notice. On the other hand, if the associate left with only one day’s notice, the practice would have to cancel appointments and thus lose revenue as it spent time scrambling to find a new dentist to handle the caseload the departing dentist left behind (and the costs that go with that urgent effort). Could that amount to $44,500 in damages (89 days x $500/day)? Conceivably.

 

Regardless of whether a proposed liquidated damages clause will ultimately be found valid and what type of breach the provision relates to, both practice owners and dentists should consult with experienced counsel before entering into an employment agreement containing a liquidated damages provision.

 

We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients

 

At Grogan Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you.

 

Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation.

 

Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices. This blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.

Speak to an Attorney

Related Posts

Business Succession Planning for Dental Practice Owners - Part III:

By Jordan Uditsky • April 15, 2026
How Defining Your Goals Will Shape Your Dental Practice’s Business Succession Plan

Business Succession Planning For Dental Practice Owners – Part II

By Jordan Uditsky • April 2, 2026
How Buy-Sell Agreements Determine the Success of Your Transition
A doctor is sitting at a desk talking to a patient.

It’s Not Me; It’s You: Terminating a Relationship With a Difficult Dental Patient

By Jordan Uditsky • March 9, 2026
Most relationships, whether personal or professional, start with a certain level of mutual trust and respect, compatibility, and shared goals and priorities. But those characteristics don’t always last, and a once-promising partnership can devolve into disputes, distrust, or outright hostility. The dentist-patient relationship is not immune to such deterioration. There may come a day when the differences between a dentist and their patient make continued treatment undesirable or impractical. A patient, of course, is free to call it quits with their dentist at any time, or the patient and dentist can mutually agree to part ways. But when a dentist wants to stop treating a problematic or disruptive patient and terminate the relationship, things can be a bit stickier. It is crucial that a dentist handles the break-up carefully and in accordance with the law and ethical standards so as to avoid claims of patient abandonment that could threaten their professional license or expose them to liability. Are you interested in speaking with one of our attorneys? Click here to contact us now. Dentists Have a Right To Unilaterally Dismiss a Patient For Reasonable Cause As a preliminary matter, dentists may choose to responsibly end their relationship with a patient for any reasonable, legally permissible cause. As the American Dental Association (ADA) guidelines put it: The dentist has the right to dismiss a patient in situations where it is impossible to resolve differences or if the dentist cannot abide the patient’s behavior within the practice, as long as the dismissal is not for a legally impermissible discriminatory reason. Accordingly, a dentist may not end a patient relationship because of the patient’s race, religion, gender, color, age, national origin, disability, or other characteristics protected by federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Notably, political opinions are not a protected characteristic under the law. Common reasons a dentist may justifiably terminate a patient include: Hostility or abusive behavior toward the dentist, staff, or other patients Harassment or sexual abuse of dentist, staff, or other patients Repeatedly missing appointments Refusal to undergo recommended testing or treatment Lack of trust or confidence in the dentist’s abilities or recommendations Consistent failure to follow office policies Showing up to appointments under the influence of alcohol or drugs Refusing to adhere to infection-control precautions and policies, such as masking Nonpayment Patient Dismissal vs. Patient Abandonment A dentist who chooses to dismiss a patient can’t simply show them the door, send them a break-up text, or refuse to answer their calls. Dentists must end the relationship such that they avoid any claim that they have abandoned their patient. According to the ADA’s Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct Section 2.F.: Once a dentist has undertaken a course of treatment, the dentist should not discontinue that treatment without giving the patient adequate notice and the opportunity to obtain the services of another dentist. Care should be taken that the patient’s oral health is not jeopardized in the process. Patient abandonment is a serious ethical violation. For example, the Illinois Dental Practice Act lists “abandonment of a patient” as one of the many reasons the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation may revoke, suspend, refuse to issue or renew, reprimand, or take other disciplinary or non-disciplinary action against a dentist. A dentist also exposes themself to a malpractice claim if injuries result from their termination of the patient at the wrong time during the course of treatment or without proper notice. Best Practices For Terminating a Patient Relationship As noted, adequate notice, providing the patient an opportunity to find alternative care, and facilitating continuity of ongoing care are the keys to responsibly ending the dentist-patient relationship and avoiding a claim of abandonment. We suggest that dentists take the following steps to minimize the likelihood of any disputes or claims arising from the termination of the relationship: provide written notice to the patient, preferably by certified mail; provide the patient with the reasons for terminating the relationship; offer to continue treatment and access to services for a reasonable period (such as 30 days) to allow the patient to secure another dentist’s services; state that you will provide emergency services for a designated period; help the patient locate another dentist; and offer to transfer the patient’s records to a new dentist and/or advise the patient of their right to obtain a copy of their records for a fee. Additionally, a dentist experiencing issues with a patient should contemporaneously document all communications, incidents, statements, or behavior suggesting a breakdown in the relationship. Of course, while a dentist can control how they handle the end of a patient relationship, they can’t control how the patient will react to being “dumped.” Even when the dentist acts professionally and cordially, as they should, there is no guarantee that the patient will do the same. If a patient responds with hostility or anger, tread carefully and do not respond in kind. Contact Us With Any Questions or Concerns If you have any questions or concerns about ending a patient relationship, please give us a call. At Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Show More

Business Succession Planning for Dental Practice Owners - Part III:

By Jordan Uditsky • April 15, 2026
How Defining Your Goals Will Shape Your Dental Practice’s Business Succession Plan

Business Succession Planning For Dental Practice Owners – Part II

By Jordan Uditsky • April 2, 2026
How Buy-Sell Agreements Determine the Success of Your Transition
A doctor is sitting at a desk talking to a patient.

It’s Not Me; It’s You: Terminating a Relationship With a Difficult Dental Patient

By Jordan Uditsky • March 9, 2026
Most relationships, whether personal or professional, start with a certain level of mutual trust and respect, compatibility, and shared goals and priorities. But those characteristics don’t always last, and a once-promising partnership can devolve into disputes, distrust, or outright hostility. The dentist-patient relationship is not immune to such deterioration. There may come a day when the differences between a dentist and their patient make continued treatment undesirable or impractical. A patient, of course, is free to call it quits with their dentist at any time, or the patient and dentist can mutually agree to part ways. But when a dentist wants to stop treating a problematic or disruptive patient and terminate the relationship, things can be a bit stickier. It is crucial that a dentist handles the break-up carefully and in accordance with the law and ethical standards so as to avoid claims of patient abandonment that could threaten their professional license or expose them to liability. Are you interested in speaking with one of our attorneys? Click here to contact us now. Dentists Have a Right To Unilaterally Dismiss a Patient For Reasonable Cause As a preliminary matter, dentists may choose to responsibly end their relationship with a patient for any reasonable, legally permissible cause. As the American Dental Association (ADA) guidelines put it: The dentist has the right to dismiss a patient in situations where it is impossible to resolve differences or if the dentist cannot abide the patient’s behavior within the practice, as long as the dismissal is not for a legally impermissible discriminatory reason. Accordingly, a dentist may not end a patient relationship because of the patient’s race, religion, gender, color, age, national origin, disability, or other characteristics protected by federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Notably, political opinions are not a protected characteristic under the law. Common reasons a dentist may justifiably terminate a patient include: Hostility or abusive behavior toward the dentist, staff, or other patients Harassment or sexual abuse of dentist, staff, or other patients Repeatedly missing appointments Refusal to undergo recommended testing or treatment Lack of trust or confidence in the dentist’s abilities or recommendations Consistent failure to follow office policies Showing up to appointments under the influence of alcohol or drugs Refusing to adhere to infection-control precautions and policies, such as masking Nonpayment Patient Dismissal vs. Patient Abandonment A dentist who chooses to dismiss a patient can’t simply show them the door, send them a break-up text, or refuse to answer their calls. Dentists must end the relationship such that they avoid any claim that they have abandoned their patient. According to the ADA’s Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct Section 2.F.: Once a dentist has undertaken a course of treatment, the dentist should not discontinue that treatment without giving the patient adequate notice and the opportunity to obtain the services of another dentist. Care should be taken that the patient’s oral health is not jeopardized in the process. Patient abandonment is a serious ethical violation. For example, the Illinois Dental Practice Act lists “abandonment of a patient” as one of the many reasons the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation may revoke, suspend, refuse to issue or renew, reprimand, or take other disciplinary or non-disciplinary action against a dentist. A dentist also exposes themself to a malpractice claim if injuries result from their termination of the patient at the wrong time during the course of treatment or without proper notice. Best Practices For Terminating a Patient Relationship As noted, adequate notice, providing the patient an opportunity to find alternative care, and facilitating continuity of ongoing care are the keys to responsibly ending the dentist-patient relationship and avoiding a claim of abandonment. We suggest that dentists take the following steps to minimize the likelihood of any disputes or claims arising from the termination of the relationship: provide written notice to the patient, preferably by certified mail; provide the patient with the reasons for terminating the relationship; offer to continue treatment and access to services for a reasonable period (such as 30 days) to allow the patient to secure another dentist’s services; state that you will provide emergency services for a designated period; help the patient locate another dentist; and offer to transfer the patient’s records to a new dentist and/or advise the patient of their right to obtain a copy of their records for a fee. Additionally, a dentist experiencing issues with a patient should contemporaneously document all communications, incidents, statements, or behavior suggesting a breakdown in the relationship. Of course, while a dentist can control how they handle the end of a patient relationship, they can’t control how the patient will react to being “dumped.” Even when the dentist acts professionally and cordially, as they should, there is no guarantee that the patient will do the same. If a patient responds with hostility or anger, tread carefully and do not respond in kind. Contact Us With Any Questions or Concerns If you have any questions or concerns about ending a patient relationship, please give us a call. At Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Show More