Ralph W. Emerson and Suzanne O. Emerson - Page 13

                                       - 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