-14-
By contrast, petitioner’s brief attributes his symptoms
exclusively to the putative Graham assault: “Ms. Graham’s
offensive conduct was the only predicate for the injuries * * *
[petitioner] sustained, and, hence, the basis for the * * *
[District’s] decision to settle * * * [petitioner’s] claim for
physical pain and suffering.”
Additionally, the allocation of the disputed amount was not
apparently contested by the District during the course of the
settlement negotiations with petitioner, and thus, the
designation of the proceeds is not consonant with the nature of
petitioner’s underlying claims. Petitioner’s complaint against
the District contains no mention or allusion to the putative
Graham assault. Petitioner’s explanation for such conspicuous
omission was that the complaint, which was never served on the
District, was filed close to the expiration of the period of
limitations for one or both of the causes of action, and was
drafted in a sterile manner without reference to the putative
Graham assault so as not to disrupt the progress of the
settlement negotiations. Apart from petitioner’s self-serving
testimony, however, there is no evidence present in the record to
establish that the putative Graham assault ever occurred.
Moreover, Teal testified at trial that the District’s
standard settlement agreements, utilized to resolve disputes of a
similar nature to that involving petitioner, were relatively
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