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