Radecki v. GlaxoSmithKline - Connecticut Employment Law Blog

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-