In an September 20, 2010, decision by Justice Emerson in connection with plaintiff-seller’s action for breach of an asset-purchase agreement relative to a skilled nursing facility against defendant-buyer, and on defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for reimbursement of certain Medicaid start-up costs, the court denied defendant’s motion finding that the express language of the parties’ agreement contemplated only a prospective remedy for defendant and did not require plaintiff to refund start-up costs overpaid by the Department of Health. “To allow a refund,” stated the court, “would give [defendant] an additional remedy that the parties neglected to include in their agreements.” The court also held that defendant’s claims under the theory of quantum meruit were not viable “when . . . it is undisputed that the parties entered into an express agreement.”