 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories10/27/2005
the vice president and general manager of the adult nutritional business at Ross, the persons who made the decision to make Mr. Schlies a full-line district manager in Memphis were Mr. Insani, the national sales manager, and Barb Groth, the regional manager of the Chicago region.
{ } At some point in this process, plaintiff had to reduce his inventory of samples that were in his garage. Plaintiff injured his back carrying cases of samples upstairs at the Fulton County Home Health Agency in October 1997. Plaintiff testified that this had happened before, and therefore he had re-aggravated his back.
{ } Plaintiff also testified at trial regarding the emotional stress he was experiencing as a consequence of his employment situation. Plaintiff testified, "I felt my back injury was related to the emotional stress of this whole issue of whether I was going to be employed or not. Just not able to sleep at night. Just not sure where we were going to be. * * * It was * * * a lot of pressure, a lot of lost sleep." (Tr. 365-366.) According to plaintiff, " t had a significant impact on me in my personal life." (Tr. 566.) Plaintiff made an appointment with a psychologist, went to the office, but decided that he "just didn't want to share my problems," and he did not see the psychologist. (Tr. 567-568.)
{ } Plaintiff's employment with Ross terminated on April 1, 1998. Plaintiff did not receive pay and benefit continuation.
{ } After three weeks of trial, the jury deliberated and returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Ross and two individual defendants, Karl V. Insani and Gregory A. Lindberg, as to plaintiff's claim for age discrimination, awarding plaintiff $700,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000,000 in punitive damages, as well as attorney fees. The jury found in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on plaintiff's claims of promissory estoppel and constructive discharge.
{ } On June 6, 2002, plaintiff moved for an award of prejudgment interest on the emotional distress portion of the jury verdict. On the same day, plaintiff applied to the trial court to set the amount of attorney fees in accordance with the jury verdict.
{ } On June 7, 2002, defendant Abbott filed a motion for the trial court to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV"), or to conditionally order a new trial, or to order remittitur as to the damages awarded by this jury. On the same day, defendants Mr. Insani and Mr. Lindberg also filed a motion for the trial court to grant a JNOV, or to grant a new trial.
{ } On May 20, 2003, the trial court rendered its decision regarding defendants Mr. Insani and Mr. Lindberg's motion for a JNOV or for a new trial, and Abbott Laboratories' motions for JNOV and for a new trial, or in the alternative, for a remittitur. We note that, in its decision, at 18, the trial court determined that, regarding the compensatory damages, the jury verdict was not influenced by passion or prejudice. However, it did find that the compensatory damage award was "manifestly excessive to the extent that it clearly shows a misconception by the jury of its duties." It accordingly provided for a remittitur, which would reduce the award to $100,000. Similarly, the trial court found that, regarding the punitive damages awarded, the verdict was not influenced by passion or prejudice. However, the court determined that the award was excessive and accordingly provided for a remittitur, which would reduce the award to $4,000,000.
{ } On June 23, 2003, the trial court entered judgment in this case. The trial court entered judgment in favor of defendant Abbott and against plaintiff on his promissory estoppel c
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|