Case Name: Bridgeway Diagnostics, LLC v. Hitachi Healthcare Americas Corporation, et al.
Case Number: CV-21-945745
Court: Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Role: Plaintiff's Counsel
Outcome: $5.7M Jury Verdict

Bridgeway Diagnostics, LLC v. Hitachi Healthcare Americas Corporation, et al.

Hitachi MRI Equipment Fraud and Breach of Contract Litigation

DiCello Levitt secured a $5.7 million jury verdict for Bridgeway Diagnostics after proving that Hitachi breached its contract and fraudulently misrepresented the MRI equipment it sold.

DiCello Levitt represented Bridgeway Diagnostics, LLC in a dispute arising from its purchase of a refurbished MRI system. Bridgeway alleged that Hitachi promised to deliver newer-generation medical imaging equipment but instead supplied older equipment that did not meet the parties’ contractual specifications. The lawsuit alleged that those misrepresentations caused significant financial harm to Bridgeway’s business and affected its ability to provide diagnostic imaging services.

Following a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, the jury found in Bridgeway’s favor on its breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation claims. The jury awarded more than $5.7 million in compensatory and punitive damages and found that Bridgeway was entitled to recover attorney fees, with the amount to be determined separately by the court.

Key Court Decisions

April 1, 2021 – Bridgeway Diagnostics, LLC filed an amended complaint asserting claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment arising from the sale of MRI equipment.
February 26, 2024 – After trial, the jury found that Hitachi breached its contract with Bridgeway and fraudulently misrepresented the MRI equipment it sold. The jury awarded more than $5.7 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

Case Overview

Bridgeway Diagnostics purchased what it believed would be a fully refurbished MRI system equipped with newer-generation technology for use in its diagnostic imaging practice. According to the complaint, Hitachi represented that it would deliver equipment meeting specific contractual requirements. Instead, Bridgeway alleged that it received older equipment with different capabilities than promised during the sales process.

Bridgeway further alleged that it relied on Hitachi’s representations when purchasing the MRI system and that the equipment it received failed to conform to the parties’ agreement. As a result, the practice claimed it suffered substantial financial losses and disruptions to its business operations.

DiCello Levitt represented Bridgeway throughout the litigation, asserting claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. At trial, the firm presented evidence that the MRI equipment delivered did not match what had been promised and that the misrepresentations caused significant harm to Bridgeway’s business.

The jury ultimately found in Bridgeway’s favor on its breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation claims, awarding more than $5.7 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The jury also found that Bridgeway was entitled to recover attorney fees, with the amount to be determined in subsequent proceedings. These results illustrate the significant legal consequences that can result when commercial purchasers prove that equipment specifications and product representations materially differed from what was promised in a negotiated sales agreement.

The case is Bridgeway Diagnostics, LLC v. Hitachi Healthcare Americas Corporation, et al., Case No. CV-21-945745, in the Cuyahoga County Court, Ohio. The DiCello Levitt team was led by Peter Soldato and Justin S. Abbarno and included Kenneth P. Abbarno and Justin Hawal.