Court filing closes a radiology ownership fight tied to a $20 million sale
A legal dispute between a New York radiologist and his former practice has ended with prejudice, closing a fight that centered on a private equity transaction and the value of a physician’s ownership stake. Gregory Ball, MD, Southtowns Radiology Associates and the other parties agreed to discontinue the case in its entirety, according to a stipulation filed Oct. 28 in Erie County Supreme Court.
The agreement ends all claims, cross-claims and counterclaims in the case. It also states that no party owes another costs or attorneys’ fees, except as otherwise agreed. The resolution follows months of litigation around a 2023 asset sale in which the practice’s assets were sold to Rezolut for $20 million.
Dr. Ball had argued that he was pushed into signing redemption agreements that bought out his ownership interest for $313,000 before the sale closed. He maintained that he was owed at least $2 million. The conflict placed a familiar pressure point in physician practice transactions on display: how ownership is valued when a group is preparing to sell to an outside buyer.
Buyout terms, employment offers and a sharp gap in valuation
Dr. Ball filed suit in February 2025. His complaint alleged that partners pressured him into accepting the redemption agreement and that the payout he received fell far below what his stake was worth once the practice was sold. The difference between $313,000 and the $2 million he claimed he should have received became the central fault line in the case.
Attorneys for the practice and eight physicians pushed back in an April 2025 motion to dismiss. Their position was that Dr. Ball had been offered the same deal as his colleagues: long-term employment and equity with Rezolut. One sentence in the filing captured the dispute’s core. “Unlike the other partners, Dr. Ball declined that offer,” the motion stated.
The legal disagreement was not limited to the buyout itself. After the judge dismissed 11 of Dr. Ball’s claims in December, eight former colleagues countersued in April, seeking at least $250,000. They alleged that the lawsuit delayed a $2 million holdback payment from Rezolut. In practice, that kind of holdback can become a lever in mergers and acquisitions, especially when a buyer ties part of the consideration to post-closing conditions or dispute resolution.
The case also drew in the law firm Epstein Becker & Green and two Rezolut entities, both named in the action. The October stipulation was signed by attorneys for Dr. Ball, the practice, the eight physicians, the Rezolut entities and the law firm.
Holdbacks, counterparties and what the dismissal leaves unresolved
The filing ends the lawsuit, but it does not explain how the parties settled on the final terms or whether any separate commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal. It also does not disclose whether the disputed holdback was released, adjusted or absorbed into a broader resolution. Those details were not included in the court document.
Rezolut has since changed hands. Colorado Springs-based Envision Radiology acquired Rezolut and its 42 outpatient imaging centers in a deal finalized Jan. 1. Terms were not disclosed.
For radiology groups and other physician practices, the dispute illustrates how quickly an ownership transition can turn into a fight over valuation, fiduciary duty and the sequencing of a sale. Redemption agreements, employment offers and equity rollover terms can all carry different economic consequences depending on how they are structured and when they are signed. A physician who exits before the closing of a sale may end up with a very different payout than a partner who stays through the transaction and participates in the buyer’s future equity.
The lawsuit also shows how transaction disputes can spill beyond the original sale. Once allegations of pressure, missed compensation or delayed distributions enter the record, the conflict can expand to include colleagues, corporate entities and outside counsel. In this case, the parties ultimately agreed to end the matter rather than keep litigating the claims, counterclaims and dismissal issues already in play.
One concrete fact remains: the court fight is over, but the transaction history behind it includes a $20 million sale, a $313,000 redemption, a claimed $2 million entitlement and a dismissed set of claims that never reached a full trial on the merits.
For physicians involved in private equity-backed transactions, the case serves as a reminder that the terms of exit can matter as much as the headline purchase price. Employment offers, rollover equity and redemption timing can all determine whether a departing physician sees a modest payout or a larger share of the eventual proceeds. The final stipulation closes this chapter, but it leaves the underlying economics of physician practice sales fully intact as a source of future disputes.