Radecki v. GlaxoSmithKline - Connecticut Employment Law Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

small metastatic lesion at the site could not be entirely ruledout. Correlation with an MRI was recommended for follow up. Thereport concludes that all other abnormalities were not stronglysuspicious for metastatic disease. On October 24, 2008, Radeckiwas seen by another physician who wrote in his report that he hadreviewed Radecki’s bone scan and CT scan report and had spokenwith the doctor who read the bone scan. The October 24, 2008report notes that Radecki would be getting an MRI of his head inthe near future. It also states that the lesion is notconcerning for the doctor from a metastatic perspective but thedoctor would wish to rule out other etiology of this finding.Also, it states that the patient is in agreement. Finally, onOctober 31, 2008, Radecki had a cranial MRI. The report of theexamination states that the MRI scan of the brain revealed noevidence of a mass lesion and that there was no evidence ofmetastatic disease to the brain.After receiving a report on the contents of Radecki’smedical records, the court informed the parties that if it couldcraft an appropriate curative instruction, it would canvas themembers of the jury to determine whether each juror could followthe instruction and would excuse any juror the court concludedwould not be able to do so. After further discussion withcounsel, however, the court concluded that it could not craft anappropriate curative instruction. A curative instruction that-6-
merely told the jurors not to consider the plaintiff’s prostatecancer would have left the defendant in a position where it wouldbe unfairly limited in cross-examination on the issue ofmitigation of damages. In addition, in order to be notmisleading, any curative instruction would have had to addressthe plaintiff’s testimony concerning a metastatic brain lesion,and would have made it clear that the plaintiff never had ametastatic brain lesion. The court concluded that an instructionconveying that information would be extremely prejudicial to theplaintiff because it would be, in substance, a negativecommentary by the court on the plaintiff’s credibility. Thiscommentary would have been particularly significant in this case,where the defendant’s contention is that the plaintiff was firedbecause he falsified records regarding his call reportingactivities. Consequently, the court concluded that anappropriate curative instruction could not be given under thecircumstances and declared a mistrial.During the discussion that afternoon, the defense hadinformed the court that it wanted an opportunity to file a motionto dismiss with prejudice. The defense was permitted to conductdiscovery to prepare for that motion and/or a new trial, andRadecki was re-deposed on June 19, 2009. Radecki was asked aboutthe meeting with his doctor, which occurred on October 24, 2008.Radecki testified as follows:-7-
Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRIC
Page 3 and 4: A: Because of the last week of Octo
Page 5: proceeded with the understanding th
Page 9 and 10: (Trial Tr. Vol. I, 152, May 7, 2009
Page 11 and 12: change conveyed to the jury not jus
Page 13 and 14: discovery tactics designed and inte
Page 15 and 16: Id. at 1301. In Rybner v. Cannon De
Page 17 and 18: sanction in response to perjury is
Page 19 and 20: his case before a new jury would gi

Radecki v. GlaxoSmithKline - Connecticut Employment Law Blog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?