- 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 ofPage: 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