throbber
PTO Form 1963 (Rev 5/2006)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0055 (Exp 07/31/2018)
`
`Combined Declaration of Use and/or Excusable Nonuse/Application for Renewal of
`Registration of a Mark under Sections 8 & 9
`
`Input Field
`
`REGISTRATION NUMBER
`
`REGISTRATION DATE
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`MARK SECTION
`
`MARK
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`1752544
`
`02/16/1993
`
`74292972
`
`NEW ENGLAND JURY VERDICT REVIEW AND ANAL
`
`CORRESPONDENCE SECTION (current)
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`RICHARD T. LAUGHLIN
`
`GRAHAM CURTIN & SHERIDAN
`
`INTERNAL ADDRESS
`
`P.O. BOX 1991
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`CORRESPONDENCE SECTION (proposed)
`
`NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA E-MAIL
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS
`
`GOODS OR SERVICES
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)SPECIMEN FILE NAME(S)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(32 pages)
`
`4 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA
`
`MORRISTOWN
`
`New Jersey
`
`07962-1991
`
`United States
`
`Jury Verdict Review Publications, Inc.
`
`45 Springfield Ave., Suite 2
`
`Springfield
`
`New Jersey
`
`07081
`
`United States
`
`973-376-9002
`
`jedz@jvra.com;christiannec@jvra.com
`
`Yes
`
`016
`
`legal newsletter
`
`SPN0-7125023771-144234314_._NE_JAN_v28i6.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890002.JPG
`
`

`

`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890008.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890009.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890010.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890011.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890012.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890013.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890014.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890015.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890016.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890017.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890018.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890019.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890020.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890021.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890022.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890023.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890024.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890025.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890026.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890027.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890028.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890029.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890030.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890031.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890032.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\742\929\74292972\xml1\S890033.JPG
`
`SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION
`
`PDF of legal newsletter
`
`OWNER SECTION (current)
`
`NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`Jury Verdict Review Publications, Inc.
`
`45 Springfield Ave., Suite 2
`
`Springfield
`
`New Jersey
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`OWNER SECTION (proposed)
`
`07081
`
`United States
`
`NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`Jury Verdict Review Publications, Inc.
`
`45 Springfield Ave., Suite 2
`
`Springfield
`
`New Jersey
`
`07081
`
`United States
`
`973-376-9002
`
`jedz@jvra.com
`
`AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA E-MAIL
`
`Yes
`
`LEGAL ENTITY SECTION (current)
`
`TYPE
`
`STATE/COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION
`
`corporation
`
`New Jersey
`
`PAYMENT SECTION
`
`NUMBER OF CLASSES
`
`NUMBER OF CLASSES PAID
`
`SUBTOTAL AMOUNT
`
`TOTAL FEE PAID
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`PAYMENT METHOD
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`1
`
`1
`
`500
`
`500
`
`/Jed Zarin/
`
`Jed Zarin
`
`Managing Editor
`
`02/15/2013
`
`973-376-9002
`
`CC
`
`FILING INFORMATION
`
`Fri Feb 15 14:47:34 EST 2013
`
`USPTO/S08N09-XX.XXX.XXX.X
`X-20130215144734838550-17
`52544-500e48481e3f8a5fb63
`96dad1b128e4875f2cb6804a6
`28c8415b77c5dcf3547f3a-CC
`-1221-2013021514423431457
`4
`
`

`

`PTO Form 1963 (Rev 5/2006)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0055 (Exp 07/31/2018)
`
`Combined Declaration of Use and/or Excusable Nonuse/Application for Renewal of Registration of a Mark under
`Sections 8 & 9
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`REGISTRATION NUMBER:(cid:160)1752544
`REGISTRATION DATE:(cid:160)02/16/1993
`
`MARK: NEW ENGLAND JURY VERDICT REVIEW AND ANAL
`
`The owner, Jury Verdict Review Publications, Inc., a corporation of New Jersey, having an address of
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)45 Springfield Ave., Suite 2
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Springfield, New Jersey 07081
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)United States
`is filing a Combined Declaration of Use and/or Excusable Nonuse/Application for Renewal of Registration of a Mark under Sections 8 & 9.
`
`For International Class 016, the mark is in use in commerce on or in connection with all goods/services, or to indicate membership in the
`collective membership organization, listed in the existing registration for this specific class: legal newsletter ; or, the owner is making the listed
`excusable nonuse claim.
`
`The owner is submitting one(or more) specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce on or in connection with any item in this class,
`consisting of a(n) PDF of legal newsletter.
`
`Original PDF file:
`SPN0-7125023771-144234314_._NE_JAN_v28i6.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) (32 pages)
`Specimen File1
`Specimen File2
`Specimen File3
`Specimen File4
`Specimen File5
`Specimen File6
`Specimen File7
`Specimen File8
`Specimen File9
`Specimen File10
`Specimen File11
`Specimen File12
`Specimen File13
`Specimen File14
`Specimen File15
`Specimen File16
`Specimen File17
`Specimen File18
`Specimen File19
`Specimen File20
`Specimen File21
`Specimen File22
`Specimen File23
`Specimen File24
`Specimen File25
`Specimen File26
`Specimen File27
`Specimen File28
`Specimen File29
`Specimen File30
`
`

`

`Specimen File31
`Specimen File32
`The registrant's current Correspondence Information: RICHARD T. LAUGHLIN of (cid:160)GRAHAM CURTIN & SHERIDAN
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)P.O. BOX 1991
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)4 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)MORRISTOWN, New Jersey (NJ) 07962-1991
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)United States
`
`The registrant's proposed Correspondence Information: Jury Verdict Review Publications, Inc.
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)45 Springfield Ave., Suite 2
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Springfield, New Jersey (NJ) 07081
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)United States
`
`The phone number is 973-376-9002.
`
`The email address is jedz@jvra.com;christiannec@jvra.com.
`
`A fee payment in the amount of $500 will be submitted with the form, representing payment for 1 class(es), plus any additional grace period fee,
`if necessary.
`
`Declaration
`
`Section 8: Declaration of Use and/or Excusable Nonuse in Commerce
`Unless the owner has specifically claimed excusable nonuse, the mark is in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services
`identified above, as evidenced by the attached specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce.
`
`The undersigned being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C.
`Section 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of this document, declares that he/she is properly
`authorized to execute this document on behalf of the Owner; and all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and that all statements
`made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`Section 9: Application for Renewal
`The registrant requests that the registration be renewed for the goods/services/collective organization identified above.
`
`Signature: /Jed Zarin/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 02/15/2013
`Signatory's Name: Jed Zarin
`Signatory's Position: Managing Editor
`Signatory's Phone Number: 973-376-9002
`
`Serial Number: 74292972
`Internet Transmission Date: Fri Feb 15 14:47:34 EST 2013
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/S08N09-XX.XXX.XXX.XX-2013021514473
`4838550-1752544-500e48481e3f8a5fb6396dad
`1b128e4875f2cb6804a628c8415b77c5dcf3547f
`3a-CC-1221-20130215144234314574
`
`

`

`SUMMARIES
`WITH TRIAL
`ANALYSIS
`
`Volume 28, Issue 6
`January 2013
`
`A monthly review of New
`England State and Federal
`Civil jury verdicts with
`professional analysis and
`commentary.
`The New England cases
`summarized in detail
`herein are obtained from
`an ongoing monthly survey
`of the State and Federal
`courts in the New England
`states.
`
`VE RDICTS BY
`CATEGORY
`
`URY VERDICT.
`REV|EW&ANALYS|S
`
`www.JVRA.com
`
`$17,449,154 ARBITRATION AWARD — Contract— Failure to pay monies due pursuant to terms of
`executive's contracts — Failure to honor continued employment contracts following merger— Breach of good faith and fair
`dealing — Violation of wage statutes .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.2
`
`$4,000,000 RECOVERY— Motor Vehicle Negligence — Autofiruck Collision — Plaintiff’s SUV flips over due to
`accumulated ice and snow — Tractor trailer collides into SUV, crushing the roof — Fractured spine — Severed spinal cord —
`Paraplegia .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.3
`
`$2,500,000 RECOVERY — Medical Malpractice — Hospital Negligence — Negligent prescription of double
`medication by surgeons and hospital pharmacy — Wrongful death of 36-year-old .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`$2,500,000 RECOVERY — Medical Malpractice — Surgery — Negligent perforation
`ofsphenoid sinusand carotid artery during surgery—|ntracrania| hemorrhage—Wrongful death of37-year-old.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 4
`
`. 5
`
`$1,850,000 RECOVERY— Medical Malpractice — Primary Care — Failure to timely diagnose and treat deep
`vein thrombosis —wrongful death of59-year-old .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.5
`
`$1,710,000 RECOVERY — Medical Malpractice — Ob/Gyn — Failure to timely diagnose and treat fetal distress
`— Failure to perform timely Caesarean section — Hypoxic ischemic brain iniury .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. 6
`
`$1,500,000 RECOVERY— Medical Malpractice — Emergency Medical Technician — EMT attempts to move
`patient alone and drops her— Femoral fracture— Fat emboli — Wrongful death of 60-year-old .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`. 7
`
`$1,500,000 RECOVERY— Medical Malpractice— Surgery — Pulmonologist negligence — Failure to timely
`diagnose esophageal perforation in patient following second high risk surgery — Multiple organ failure — Wrongful death
`ol52-year-old .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.7
`
`Professional Malpractice (3)
`Dental .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`Emergency Department .
`Ob/Gyn .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Contract (1)
`Disability Discrimination (T)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`. 9
`10
`
`10
`
`Motor Vehicle Negligence (11)
`Auto/Motorcycle Collision .
`Auto/Pedestrian Collision .
`Intersection Collision .
`.
`.
`.
`
`Parking Spot Collision .
`Rear End Collision
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`Premises Liability (5)
`
`Dog Attack (3) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Employer's Liability (1) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Homeowner's Negligence (T)
`
`Landlord/Tenant(1)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. 1'|
`
`. 13
`
`. 14
`
`. 14
`
`Hazardous Premises .
`
`.
`
`Sexual Harassment (1) .
`S
`I
`IV cl‘
`D‘
`"pp emenm er I“
`Igesl
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`Copyright 2013 Jury Verdict Review Publications Inc.
`
`Subscribe Now
`
`

`

`
`
`Summaries with Trial Analysis
`
`$I7,449,154 ARBITRATION AWARD — CONTRACT - FAILURE TO PAY MONIES DUE
`PURSUANT TO TERMS OF EXECUTIVE'S CONTRACTS - FAILURE TO HONOR
`CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS FOLLOWING MERGER - BREACH OF GOOD
`FAITH AND FAIR DEALING - VIOLATION OF WAGE STATUTES.
`
`Fairfield County, Cl’
`In this breach of contract matter the plaintiffs, all
`senior executives, alleged that the defendant
`breached its individual contracts with them
`regarding continued employment and benefits.
`Following a merger the defendant terminated the
`plaintiffs without cause and failed to honor
`compensation and benefits packages. The
`defendant denied all liability and denied that
`there was any breach of contracts.
`
`The plaintiffs in this matter were former senior execu-
`tives. They were employed by a corporation who exe-
`cuted with each of the plaintiffs separate, but
`id ntical mploym nt agr m nts. Th agreements
`triggered mutual obligations only in the event of an
`acquisition by another company. In the event of an
`acquisition, the new corporation would continue to
`employ the executives in their current positions, and
`pay them the same total compensation and benefits
`package for a period of at least three years from the
`date of the acquisition. The agreements essentially
`contained employment guarantees for each of these
`executives.
`
`In November 2008, the defendant acquired the
`plaintiff's existing corporation when itwas merged into
`the defendant's corporation. This triggered the em-
`ployment guarantees for the plaintiff executives. The
`defendant terminated the plaintiffs without cause and
`refused to provide them with the same level of com-
`pensation and benefits of employment as provided in
`the contracts. It failed to permit the plaintiffs to partici-
`pate in the equity plan and forced the plaintiffs to ex-
`ercise or forfeit all previously-issued stock option
`grants which had vested automatically upon the con-
`summation of the merger, within 30 days of the plain-
`tiffs' respective termination. The plaintiffs were
`prohibited from participating in any manner in the eq-
`uity plan and were forced to use their COBRA benefits
`prematurely in violation of the employment
`agreements.
`
`The plaintiffs brought a claim against the defendant
`in accordance with the arbitration provision of the
`employment agreements after unsuccessfully at-
`tempting to negotiate a resolution of the plaintiffs’
`claims. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and
`breach of the covenant of good faith and fair deal-
`
`ing by the defendant. The plaintiffs also alleged that
`the defendant breached wage statutes by their
`actions.
`
`The defendant denied all allegations of liability and
`maintained that any bad faith claims were pre-
`empted by ERISA. The defendantfurther argued that
`the employment agreements did not require the pay-
`ments that the plaintiffs were seeking. The defendant
`argued that pre-closing documents and disclosures
`absolved them of liability.
`
`The arbitration hearing took place over six days. At the
`conclusion of the arbitration, the panel rendered its
`award in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defen-
`dant. The panel awarded the executives the total
`sum of St 7.449.154 consisting of $6,830,702 plus ex-
`cise and income tax gross—up of $10,618,452.
`
`REFERENCE
`
`Plaintiff's valuation expert: Craig A. Jacobson, M.B.A.
`from New York, NY. Defendant's valuation expert:
`David J. Ross from Chicago, IL.
`Dennis L. Winger, Barbara J. Kerr, Thomas P.
`Livingston. John S. Ostaszewski and Ugo D. DeBlasi vs.
`Life Technologies Corporation. Case no. AAA l2 lob
`00307 l0. l2—04—l2.
`
`Attorneys for plaintiff: Scott R. Lucas and Jeffrey S.
`Bagnell of Lucas Bagnell Varga LLC in Southport, CT.
`Attorneys for defendant: Robert J. Mathias and Ian C.
`Taylor of DLA Piper US LLP in Baltimore, MA.
`
`COMME NTARY
`
`The employment agreements specifically anticipated the possibility
`ol breach by an acquiring company and provided that in the event
`ofa termination without cause or a resignation for "good reason”
`the acquiring corporation would have to continue to provide the em-
`ployee in question with the some level ol compensation and benelits
`they would have received had they remained employed for the
`greater ol two years or the remaining period ol employment. The
`agreements were specifically designed to incentivize the plaintitls to
`remain employed and cooperate with any changes that the
`corporation may undergo in the future.
`The agreement was over and above any severance packages that
`the executives would receive il their employment was terminated.
`The executives in this matter did receive severance packages which
`
`Reproduction in any form without the express permission of the publisher is strictly prohibited by law.
`
`Volume 23, Issue 6, January 2Ui3
`
`Subscribe Now
`
`

`

`SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS
`
`NEW
`
`ENGLAND
`
`JURY VERDICT
`www mm (om
`REVIEW&ANALYS|5
`Founder
`Ira J. Zarin, Esq.
`Editor in Chief
`Jed M. Zarin
`
`Contributing Editors
`Brian M. Kessler, Esq.
`Michael Bagen
`Laine Harmon, Esq.
`Cristina N. Hyde
`Deborah McNally, Paralegal
`Ruth B. Neely, Paralegal
`Cathy 5chlecter—Harvey, Esq.
`Tammy A. Smith, Esq.
`Kate Turnbow, Paralegal
`Susan Winkler, Esq.
`Business Development
`Gary Zarin
`garyz@ivra.com
`Production Coordinator
`Christianne C. Mariano
`Professional Search
`Tim Mathieson
`Court Data Coordinator
`Jeffrey S. Zarin
`Customer Services
`Meredith Whelan
`meredithw@ivra.com
`Circulation Manager
`Ellen Loren
`Proofreader
`Cathryn Peyton
`Web Development &
`Technology
`Juris Design
`www.iurisdesign.com
`Published by Jury Verdict Review
`Publications, Inc. 45 Springfield
`Avenue, Springfield, NJ 07081
`www.ivra.com
`Main Office:
`973/376-9002 Fax 973/376-T 775
`Circulation & Billing Department:
`973/535-6263
`New England Jury Verdict Review &
`Analysis is a trademark of Jury Verdict
`Review Publications, Inc.
`New England Jury Verdict Review &
`Analysis (ISSN 0886-2540) is
`published monthly at the subscription
`rate of $345/year by Jury Verdict
`Review Publications, Inc., 45 Springfield
`Avenue, Springfield, NJ 07081.
`Periodical postage paid at Springfield,
`NJ and at additional mailing offices.
`Postmaster: Send address changes to:
`New England Jury Verdict Review &
`Analysis, 45 Springfield Avenue,
`Springfield, NJ 07081.
`
`the delendant attempted to argue were significant. The defendant attempted to portray the
`executives as being greedy and seeking the continued stock plan benelits and health benelits
`despite their generous severance packages. The plainlilfs denied this position by arguing
`that the plainlills were only seeking what they had legally negotiated and agreed to with
`their lormer employer.The plainlills argued that the delendanl should have been more cog-
`nizant of what its exposure was by virtue ol the merger and acquiring these existing agree-
`ments, which il clearly lailed to do, and was now attempting to short change the executives.
`The arbitration panel that heard this matter consisted ol a former Connecticut United States
`District iudge, a former state superior court iudge and an attorney. The hearings were held
`in May and October 2012.
`
`$4,000,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY - MOTOR
`VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE — AUTO/TRUCK COLLISION —
`PLAINTIFF’S SUV I-"LIPS OVER DUE TO ACCUMULATED
`ICE AND SNOW- TRACTOR TRAILER COLLIDES INTO
`
`SUV, CRUSHING THE ROOF — FRACTURED SPINE -
`SEVERED SPINAL CORD - PARAPLEGIA.
`
`Withheld County, MA
`In this motor vehicle negligence matter, the plaintiff alleged that the
`defendant tractor trailer driver and the defendant trucking company
`were negligent. The plaintiff contended that the driver followed too
`closely and could not stop his tractor trailer before running into the
`plaintiff's overturned vehicle, severing her spinal cord. The plaintiff
`contended that the defendant trucking company failed to properly
`train and supervise the defendant driver and was unaware that his
`commercial license had been suspended. The plaintiff was
`paralyzed from the waist down as a result of the incident.
`
`The l9-year-old female plaintiff was operating her sport utility vehicle on
`the entrance ramp to the highway on the date of the incident. The de-
`fendant driver was operating his tractor trailer behind the plaintiff's vehicle
`at a speed of approximately 40 miles per hour. There was insufficient dis-
`tance between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle. On ei-
`ther side of the roadway were large snow banks, approximately six feet in
`height. The plaintiff's vehicle's front tire got caught in the snow from the
`snow bank which caused the vehicle to flip over. The defendant driver
`was only lO0 feet behind the plaintiff traveling at speed which made him
`unable to bring his rig to a stop without colliding into the plaintiff's vehicle.
`The collision resulted in the roof of the plaintiff's vehicle being crushed.
`
`As a result o the collis'on. the plaintiff sustained a broken back and a
`severed spiral cord. She was paralyzed from the waist down as a result of
`her injuries. The plaintl f brought suit against the defendant driver and the
`defendant t ucking company alleging negligence. The plaintiff can-
`tended that the driver was followlng the plaintiff too closely and in viola-
`tlon of commercial dr'ving guidelines for following. The plaintiff further
`contended hat the defendant trucking company was negligent in hiring,
`training and supervlsirg the defendant driver and was liable for the
`plaintiff's injuries as a result.
`
`The defendants denied liability and maintained that the plaintiff was
`reading a text at the t‘me of the incident, not paying attention and was
`the cause o her own ‘niuries and damages. The defendant driver main-
`tained that the sudden flipping of the plaintiff's vehicle on the roadway
`prevented h'm from reacting in any different manner.
`
`The parties agreed to a confidential settlement of the plaintiff's claim for
`the sum of $4,000,000.
`
`Subscribe Now
`
`New England Jury Verdict Review 8. Analysis
`
`

`

`SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS
`
`REFERENCE
`
`Plaintiff Jane Doe vs. Defendant Trucking Company
`and Defendant Driver. l0-26-l 2.
`
`Attorneys for plaintiff: Jeffrey N. Catalano and
`Carole C. Cooke of Todd 8: Weld in Boston, MA.
`
`COMMENTARY
`
`The plaintiff pursued its claim against the trucking company alleg-
`ing that it was negligent in failing to properly check on the defen-
`dant driver and his driving record as it was supposed to do. Had the
`defendant company performed the annual checks it would have be-
`come apparent that the driver's commercial license had been sus-
`
`pended for a period of one year for a driving while intoxicated. The
`defendant company's negligence was paramount to the case be-
`cause in addition to failing to perform annual checks, it failed to
`pull a three year history of the defendant's driving record and was
`unaware of the driver’s history of repeat motor vehicle violations
`and accidents before he was hired.
`The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant trucking company
`failed to properly train the defendantdriver. The plaintiff main-
`tained that the driver was following the plaintiff too closely in viola-
`tion of driving regulations which maintain that the defendant's
`vehicle should have been at least six or seven seconds behind the
`plaintiff on the roadway, giving itenough time to stop in the event
`ofan unexpected emergency. Such was not the case.
`
`$2,500,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY- MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - HOSPITAL
`NEGLIGENCE — NEGLIGENT PRESCRIPTION OF DOUBLE MEDICATION BY SURGEONS
`AND HOSPITAL PHARMACY - WRONGI-'UL DEATH OF 36-YEAR-OLD.
`
`Withheld County, MA
`In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff
`alleged that the defendant surgeons and
`pharmacists were negligent in prescribing and
`filling a double dose of the same medication in
`two different forms for the patient, which resulted
`in a fatal overdose. The defendants denied any
`deviation from acceptable standards of care and
`blamed the decedent for improperly taking the
`medication.
`
`The 36-year-old decedent ca me under the care of
`the defendant surgeons for a hernia repair. He re-
`turned to the hospital with complaints of fecal matter
`leaking through the iejuna site. As a result, he was ad-
`mitted to the hospital for one week. During that time,
`the decedent, who suffered from Crohn's disease,
`was prescribed two different drugs. lmuran and 6-MP
`for his condition after the defendant surgeons con-
`sulted with a gastroenterologist.
`
`The plaintiff contended that the patient should have
`been given only one of the drugs. not both. The plain-
`tiff contended that the pharmacist defendants at the
`hospital were negligent for failing to realize that the
`patient had been prescribed two of the same type of
`drugs, essentially receiving a double dose of the
`immunosuppressant medication. To complicate mat-
`ters even further, at the time of the discharge from
`the hospital, the decedent was discharged with pre-
`scriptions for both medications. Less than one month
`after his admission to the hospital the patient began
`to demonstrate symptoms of lethargy and pale skin.
`He was re-admitted to the hospital where he died
`shortly thereafter.
`
`The plaintiff brought suit alleging that the defendants
`were negligent in prescribing the double dosage of
`medication forthe plaintiff's decedent and in negli-
`
`gently filling the double dosage of medication and
`giving the patient prescriptions to continue taking
`both medications. The defendants denied the allega-
`tions of negligence and maintained that there was no
`deviation from acceptable standards of care. The
`defendants argued that the decedent was negligent
`and improperly took his medication. failing to follow
`the defendant's instructions, and was therefore the
`cause of his own injuries and damages.
`
`The parties resolved the matter for a confidential re-
`covery of $2,500,000.
`
`REFERENCE
`
`Plaintiff Estate of John Doe vs. Defendant Surgeons
`Roe, et al., O5-O3-l 2.
`
`Attorneys for plaintiff: James A. Swartz and Jonathan
`D. Sweet of Swartz 8: Swartz in Boston, MA.
`
`COMME NTARY
`
`The plaintiff contended that the defendants were negligent in pre-
`scribing both of the immunosuppressant drugs to the plaintiff. Ei-
`ther of the drugs are sufficient on their own, according to the
`plaintiff, and by prescribing both drugs, the patient was effectively
`being overdosed. Usually, the drugs are given alternatively if one of
`the drugs cannot be tolerated by the patient.
`The plaintiff contended that the surgeons, the gastroenterologist
`and the pharmacists that filled the prescriptions were all on notice
`that the two drugs should not have been prescribed in tandem, yet
`at no point did any of the defendants realize that the plaintiff's de-
`cedent was taking both medications. The defendants’ position was
`that the patientwas extremely uncooperative particularly as it re-
`lated to the ingestion of medication, therefore he was a cause of his
`own iniuries.
`
`Volume 23, Issue 6, January 2Ul3
`
`Subscribe Now
`
`

`

`SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS
`
`$2,500,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY- MEDICAL MALPRACTICE — SURGERY —
`NEGLIGENT PERFORATION OF SPHENOID SINUS AND CAROTID ARTERY DURING
`SURGERY— INTRACRANIAL HEMORRHAGE — WRONGFUL DEATH OF 37-YEAR-OLD.
`
`Withheld County, l'lllIl
`In this medical malpractice matter, the plaintiff
`alleged that the defendant surgeon was negligent
`in perforating the plaintiff's sinus and carotid
`artery during a sinus surgical procedure which
`resulted in a fatal brain hemorrhage. The
`defendant denied all liability and damages
`maintaining that there was no deviation from
`acceptable standards of care.
`
`The 37-year-old female patient came under the care
`of the defendant ENT surgeon on June 10, 20l 0 for
`elective sinus surgery to treat the patient's recurrent sl-
`nus infections. As the defendant was performing the
`surgery, it was noted that the patients vital signs in-
`creased, particularly her blood pressure and heart
`rate. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was
`negligent in failing to determine the cause of the
`uptick in the patients vital signs. Instead. the defen-
`dant ordered that the anesthesia be increased.
`
`Following the procedure, the patient did not come
`out of the anesthesia and wake up. A CT—scan dem-
`onstrated that the patient had suffered a perforation
`in the sphenoid sinus on the left side adjacent to the
`carotid artery. The patient was diagnosed as having
`suffered an intracraniai hemorrhage. Subsequent di-
`agnostic testing in preparation fora procedure on the
`brain disclosed a left internal artery dissection which
`was determined to have occurred during the surgical
`procedure. The patient never regained consciousness
`and she remained hospitalized until her death
`approximately six months later.
`
`The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant sur-
`geon alleging negligence in the surgery where the
`defendant perforated the sphenoid sinus and the ca-
`
`rotid artery causing an intracraniai hemorrhage that
`resulted in the patients death. The defendant denied
`the allegations, disputed any deviation from accept-
`able standards of care and disputed causation.
`
`The parties ultimately agreed on a $2,500,000 confi-
`dential settlement to resolve the plaintiff's claim prior
`to a trial.
`
`REFERENCE
`
`Plaintiff Estate of Doe vs. Defendant Surgeon Roe. T0-
`01 -T 2.
`
`Attorneys for plaintiff: Elizabeth N. Mulvey and
`Michael J. Harris of Crowe 8: Mulvey in Boston, MA.
`
`COMME NTARY
`
`The plaintifl underwent the procedure as an elective surgery to cor-
`rect problems that she had been having with recurrentsinus inlec-
`tions. The plaintill alleged that the delendant surgeon failed to
`recognize that the uptake in the p|aintilf's vital signs during the sur-
`gery may have been related to his own negligence in perlorating
`her sinus and carotid artery. Despite her obvious signs ol distress
`even while under anesthesia, the plaintilf contended that the delen-
`dant failed to terminate the surgery. He never acknowledged that
`he may have been causing the patient iniury during the procedure
`and steadlastly denied any wrongdoing.
`The hemorrhage proved latal lor the young woman who remained
`only minimally responsive and died approximately six months alter
`the procedure. The post—operative diagnostic testing and examina-
`tion clearly linked the actions of the surgeon to the hemorrhage
`sustained by the patient.
`
`$1,850,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY- MEDICAL MALPRACTICE — PRIMARY CARE —
`FAILURE TO TIMELY DIAGNOSE AND TREAT DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS — WRONGFUL
`DEATH OF 59-YEAR-OLD.
`
`Withheld County, l'IlIl
`In this medical malpracti

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Try refreshing this document from the court, or go back to the docket to see other documents.

We are unable to display this document.

Go back to the docket to see more.