- 13 -
A Yes.
Q And what was that?
A I think it was working under the conditions
that were present in the work environment which were a
physical situation with laboratories, preparations of
materials without the best of good laboratory
practices, and the mental attitude, the gestalt that
went with that.
Petitioner did not, however, raise the issue of the poor
laboratory conditions and exposure to toxins until the time of
trial of this case in May 2002, when petitioner’s counsel
attempted to introduce expert evidence to demonstrate the risk
associated with working with the chemicals to which petitioner
was exposed. Petitioner’s sole tort claims prior to the second
amended complaint consisted of slander and intentional infliction
of emotional distress, neither of which qualifies for exclusion
under section 104(a)(2).
At trial, when petitioner’s counsel questioned petitioner as
to why the defendants paid him the settlement money when the
products he developed had not yet made it to market, petitioner
responded that the money was paid for “positive results” and the
gamble taken in gaining the patents. Petitioner then responded
to leading questions from his counsel that he received the money
for a medical settlement for the deterioration of his health.
The totality of petitioner’s testimony suggests that he settled
the case with the defendants based on the uncertainty of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011