Motion-Secondary: Hlatky, Ph.D., Lynn vs. Steward Health Care System, LLC,

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

 

SUFFOLK, s: SUPERIOR COURT
: CIVIL ACTION NO. 2014-0453-E
LYNN HLATKY, Ph.D.,:

Plaintiff, =| B

: “9

v. : 3

nm

STEWARDIHEALTH CARE SYSTEM, N

LLC, ms v

Defendant, ! ‘ ®

wa

  

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT AFTER RESCRIPT
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CORRECT CLERICAL MISTAKE

Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60, plaintiff Dr. Lynn Hlatky hereby moves for

amendment of—or, in the alternative, correction of the clerical mistake within—this Court’s
i

judgment after rescript to reflect the proper calculation of damages. As grounds therefor, Dr.

Hlatky states that, after receiving the Supreme Judicial Court’s rescript order affirming the

'

defendant’s liability ‘and damages owed, judgment after rescript entered in this Court incorrectly
assessing postjudgment interest. Specifically, the judgment after rescript mistakenly uses

August 19, 2020 as the accrual date for postjudgment interest, rather than the proper date of June
ot

22, 2017, when the original judgment after verdict entered. Moreover, the judgment after
rescript omits costs previously awarded by Judge Green, on April 18, 2018. These oversights

reduce Dr. Hlatky’s recovery by nearly $1.6 million.

‘

The Supreme Judicial Court has determined, under circumstances presented in a case
I

exactly like this one, that the proper date from which to calculate postjudgment interest accrual isthat of the judgment after verdict. See Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., SJC No. 10261, Docket

 

 

No. 39, Memorandum and Order (Dec. 22, 2009).' And well-established Massachusetts law

mandates that costs not only may be awarded to a prevailing party, Mass R. Civ. P. 54(d), but

my

also accrue postjudgment interest from the date of such award, Osborne v. Biotti, 404 Mass. 112,
my, '

117 (1989). ' '

I
Thus} to dvoid substantial injustice to Dr. Hlatky and a windfall for the defendant, Dr.

Hlatky respectfully Fequests that this Court amend or correct its judgment after rescript to reflect
i :
the proper amount of damages owed. This Motion is further supported by the accompanying

Memorandum ofiLaw.
a Respectfully Submitted,

DR. LYNN HLATKY

By her Attorneys,

s/ Joseph L. Bierwirth, Jr.
' i Joseph L. Bierwirth, Jr.,
: BBO #564071
. M. Patrick Moore, Jr.,
Dated: August 31, 2020 BBO #670323
yt Meaghan E. Borys,
vii BBO #690943
: HEMENWAY & BARNES LLP.
a 75 State Street
' Boston, MA 02109
‘ Tel: (617) 227-7940
Fax: (617) 227-0781
i jbierwirth@hembar.com
bay pmoore@hembar.com
1 mborys@hembar.com

! This Order is attached in its entirety to the accompanying Memorandum of Law.
1
2roe CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
:

detigned counsel hereby certifies that on this 31st day of August, 2020, a true and

1
1

The ul
accurate wok of teat Motion to Amend Judgment After Rescript Or, In The

Alternative, To Comet Clerical Mistake, was served on all counsel of record by email.

 

/s/ Joseph L. Bierwirth, Jr.
Joseph L. Bierwirth, Jr.

!
|
i
1
I
i
|
“heCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

 

SUFFOLK, s§.. | SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2014-0453-B

LYNN HLATKY, PhD.,

Plaintiff, ‘
v.

, :

STEWARDIHEALTH CARE SYSTEM, :
LLC,

Defendant. + r

 

 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND JUDGMENT AFTER RESCRIPT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE.
oa ‘TO CORRECT CLERICAL MISTAKE

 

 

 

On August’ 14, 2020, this Court received a rescript order from the Supreme Judicial Court
that affirmed the lability of defendant Steward Health Care System, LLC (“Steward”) and the
award of damages for the plaintiff, Dr. Lynn Hlatky, in the amount of $10.2 million. The
rescript order also contained instructions for calculating prejudgment interest, but none as to
postjudgment interest. Thereafter, in implementing this rescript order, an incorrect date was set
for accrual off postjudgment interest—a seemingly simple clerical mistake that nonetheless
significantly alters the total damages owed to Dr. Hlatky. The judgment after rescript also omits
costs awarded by Judge Green on April 18, 2018.

Seeking to remedy these errors, Dr. Hlatky brings the present motion to either amend the

judgment after resoript pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or, in the alternative, to address theoversights under Mass. R.!Civ. P. 60.! As Massachusetts law is clear as to the proper application

of postjudgment intrest and indisputably requires the payment of costs duly ordered, Dr. Hlatky

respectfully noves ti Court to (1) change the date of judgment for the purposes of calculating

postjudgment

include in th

After]

interest to June 22, 2017—1the date of entry of the judgment after verdict; and (2)
to :

final damages calculation the $8,431.22 in costs awarded, with interest.
hr
, is FACTUAL BACKGROUND

itrial, aijury awarded Dr. Hlatky over $22.6 million for Steward’s breach of
5

1 I
contract.? On Juhe 22, 2017, judgment entered on this verdict, with prejudgment interest

calculated from the day the Complaint was filed. The following year, on April 18, 2018, Judge
i :

Green allowed De Hlatky’s motion for costs in the amount of $8,431.22.

Farthi

er motion practice resulted in multiple orders issued on April 23, 2018. First, the
i

judgment after verdict was amended such that prejudgment interest would accrue from

December 31}

toi 1
, 201 2. Second, Steward's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in

the alternative, to, amend the judgment, was denied. And third, Steward’s motion for new trial

was allowed,|

pnless!Dr, Hlatky accepted a remitted award of $10.2 million, which she did. Both

parties appealed.’ , '

After]

decision, the

q
lextensive appellate briefing, argument, and pursuant to an April 28, 2020 written
_

Supreme Judicial Court issued its rescript order, received by this Court on August

14, 2020. The rescript order read (with emphasis added):

by
it
ot

1 On August 28, 2020, Dr. Hlatky filed with the Supreme Judicial Court a Motion to Clarify
Rescript as to | Acbrual of Postjudgment Interest and for Order Amending Judgment to Reflect

Proper Calcul

? For ease of
Tab A.

ation of Damages, by which she seeks the same relief requested here.

\eference, the trial court docket in this matter is appended hereto, in its entirety, at
'

i
t
1
|
tBya inanimous court, the judgment on Steward's liability for breach of contract is
affirmed.’ The judge's order denying Steward's motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict or, in the alternative, to amend the judgment, and order conditionally granting a
new trial unless Hlatky remitted all but $10.2 million of the award of damages, are also
affirmed by a unanimous court. By an equally divided court, the award of damages
outright to Hiatky without restriction is also affirmed. Finally, the judge's order
concerning: prejudginent interest is vacated, and in its place, an order shall enter stating
that the prejudgment interest runs from the date of the commencement of this action.

On August 1,9, 2020, 2 new judgment was entered in this Court. This “judgment after
rescript” confirmed Steward’s liability by reflecting the $10.2 million damages award and
included the date the Complaint was filed as the start of prejudgment interest accrual. However,
it changed the date of judgment for purposes of calculating postjudgment interest from June 22,
2017—1the date of judgment after verdict—to August 19, 2020, the date of judgment after
rescript. It also omitted the costs ordered on April 18, 2018.

The judgment after rescript significantly alters the total damages owed to Dr. Hlatky by
incorrectly discounting the postjudgment interest that has accrued on the damages award since
the judgment after verdict entered in 2017. For this reason, the judgment after rescript totals
damages at only $18;203,863.00 as of August 19, 2020, instead of the true amount of damages

owed as of that date:'$19,775,279.31.3
1

 

3 This $19,775,279.31 figure includes: (a) the $10.2 million remitted damages; (b) 12% statutory
prejudgment interest-accrued on the $10.2 million until the date of entry of the judgment after
verdict; (c) 12% statutory postjudgment interest accrued on the $14,328,065.75 total damages-
plus-prejudgment-interest amount until the date of August 19, 2020; (d) the $8,431.22 in costs
awarded on April 18; 2018; and (e) postjudgment interest accrued on the costs award until the
date of August 19, 2020. Of course, postjudgment interest accrues until day of payment, Mass.
R. Civ. P. 54(f). By separate filing, Dr. Hlatky has moved for execution of the undisputed
$18,203,863.00, while reserving her rights to additional recovery.

i

w' ARGUMENT.

I. The Judgment After Rescript Improperly Calculates Postjudgment Interest
From a Date Three Years After Steward’s Obligation was Settled.

Under G.L. ‘ 231, '§ 6C, prejudgment interest, accruing from the date of filing and folded

1
into a damages award, “compensates the prevailing party for the time value of money accrued”

before litigation resolves. Anderson v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh PA, 476 Mass.

377, 383 (2017).4 Postjudgment interest then accrues on such amount to make up for any delay
1

by the non-prevailing party in paying what is owed. Id. at 383-384. Where liability is affirmed

on appeal, postjudement interest is calculated as having accrued from the date of entry of the

judgment settling ail claims. Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., SIC No. 10261, Docket No. 39,

 

|
Memorandum and Order (Dec. 22, 2009) (plaintiff entitled to postjudgment interest from “date
on which judgment gotered on the jury verdict,” as opposed to “the date of the amended

judgment or date of judgment after rescript”); > Shawmut Comm. Bank, N.A. v. Zagami, 419

 

|
Mass. 220, 224-226 (1994) (postjudgment interest accrued after entry of judgment on last cause
|

 

of action adjudicated), Fontaine v. Ebtec Corp., 415 Mass. 309, 328 (1993) (plaintiff entitled to
postjudgment intérest from date of jury verdict in his favor, not from date of subsequent
i

|
amended judgment or rescript); Patry v. Liberty Mobilehome Sales, Inc., 394 Mass. 270, 273
j

(1985) (postjudgmenit interest accrued on damages total from date of court’s liability judgment

i

4 While the Abdersoh court examined the purpose of statutory prejudgment interest under G.L. c.
231, §6B (tott matters), the language of G.L. c. 231, § 6C (contract matters), applicable here, is
materially similar in ithis regard.

|

5 The Supreme Judicial Court’s December 22, 2009 Memorandum and Order on the Haddad v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455' Mass. 91 (2009) plaintiff-appellant’s “Motion for Clarification
Relative to the Date of: Commencement of Postjudgment Interest, and Its Calculation” (the
“Haddad Order’) i is appended hereto, at Tab B. For ease of reference, the complete appellate and
trial dockets for the Haddad matter are likewise appended hereto, at Tab C.

 

 

 

 

to

i
mh

|

|and damages| award, not from date of rescript, even where amount of trial court’s interest award

vacated in part oni appeal).
, it

The postjudgment interest issue the Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) reviewed in.
ry

Haddad is exactly what Dr. Hlatky faces now. A jury awarded the Haddad plaintiff both

 

it

 

compensator’ and punitive damages, after which judgment on the verdict entered. Haddad

Order, at 1.

by vacating the a‘

Later:motion practice resulted in the trial court amending the judgment after verdict

 

rd of punitive damages. Haddad, 455 Mass. at 93. The parties cross-

Ca
appealed, and the, SJC issued a decision affirming the defendant's liability in all respects and
J

reinstating the punitive dainages award. Id. at 93-94. Upon the entering of judgment after

rescript, the Haddad plaintiff filed a motion with the SJC, requesting determination of the

appropriate dates’ from which to calculate pre- and postjudgment interest on the reinstated award.

 

Haddad Order, at!

   

In agreeing with the plaintiff that “the proper date from which to calculate

postjudgmen interest ... ds the date on which judgment entered on the jury verdict,” the SJC

reasoned:

by

Caleu! lating postjudgment interest from any subsequent date, such as the date of the
amended judgment or the date of judgment after rescript, unfairly prejudices the plaintiff,
who is entitled to postjudgment interest from the date on which a correct judgment should
have entered.

Id. at 2. The Haddad Court then ordered amendment of the judgment after rescript to reflect

postjudgment interest accrual on all damages from the date of judgment after verdict. Id, at 3.
1

' . : . .
Here, |the proper date from which to calculate postjudgment interest is June 22, 2017,
toy io

when the judgment after verdict entered assessing damages against Steward for its breach of

contract. On| Ithat date, Steward’s liability to Dr. Hlatky on her claims was settled, and her

entitlement to postjudgment interest was set. By calculating postjudgment interest from a date

ot
over three years after a judgment entered confirming Steward’s liability and settling the damages
4

5i
ia
amount, the judgment after verdict unfairly benefits Steward and prejudices Dr. Hlatky. See
Osborne v. Biott, 404 Mass. 112, 117 (1989) (“Granting a judgment creditor interest on a money
judgment from the ehtry of judgment to its satisfaction is intended to place the judgment creditor
and the judgntent.debtor in the same position they would have enjoyed had the debtor paid the
judgment promptly”).

As for which device it might employ to remedy this error, Rule 59(e) is designed

i
precisely to cure incorrect judgments, including those containing erroncous computations of
'

interest. Shawmut, 419 Mass. at 223. Alternatively, Rule 60 is an equally viable tool by which
te

to fix mistaken inferbst caloulations, Bernier v. Boston Edison Co., 380 Mass. 372, 388 n.17

i
ri
(1980). Regardless of the method chosen, this Court possesses the “inherent and necessary”

authority to act ona party’s motion “to correct errors and remedy omissions in its records in
order that they shal ‘speak the truth.” Webb v. Cohen, 280 Mass. 292, 293 (1932). Dr. Hlatky
respectfully requests that it does so here, by amending the judgment after rescript to incorporate
the proper date after'which postjudgment interest began accruing: June 22, 2017.

I. The Judgment After Rescript Mistakenly Omits Costs Awarded to Dr. Hlatky
Court Order.
ii
On April 18, '2018, Judge Green awarded Dr. Hlatky $8,431.22 in costs.° These are not
' '
included in the award outlined by the judgment after rescript. Because costs accrue

 

postjudgment interest from the date of such order, Osborne, 404 Mass. at 117, this award now
totals over $10,000.” Dr. Hlatky respectfully requests that, in addition to the relief set forth
po

 

a
6 This costs ofdenis appended hereto, at Tab D.

7 Specifically} by ‘August 19, 2020, the costs plus postjudgment interest totaled $10,798.43.
‘ 6above, this C

awarded costs,

In con

reflect (1) that postj

i
ourtorder further amendment of the judgment after rescript to include these
boy

. as Well as postjudgment interest accrued thereon.

CONCLUSION

t
clusion, Dr. Hlatky moves for amendment of the judgment after rescript to properly
bo

dgment interest in this matter began accruing upon entry of the judgment

 

after verdict on Jui e 22, 20175 and (2) the costs duly awarded by Judge Green on April 18, 2018,
io

with postjudgmen;

 

ra
' Respectfully Submitted,
rod

; DR. LYNN HLATKY

By her Attorneys,

: fs/ Joseph L, Bierwirth, Jr.
Joseph L. Bierwirth, Jr.,
BBO #564071

i
'
he
i ‘ M. Patrick Moore, Jr.,

Dated: August 31, 2020 BBO #670323

i 1 Meaghan E. Borys,
' BBO #690943

an HEMENWAY & BARNES LLP
to 1 75 State Street

| ! i Boston, MA 02109

I Tel: (617) 227-7940

: ' Fax: (617) 227-0781

' ! jbierwirth@hembar.com

he pmoore@hembar.com

or mborys@hembar.comThe ui

‘| CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

ndersigned counsel hereby certifies that on this 31st day of August, 2020, a true and

accurate copy, of the foregoing Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend

'
Judgment After Rescript Or, In The Alternative, To Correct Clerical Mistake, was served on all

counsel of record by'email.

   

' /s/ Joseph L. Bierwirth, Jr.
Joseph L. Bierwirth, Jr,XIQNaAddVTABA8/24/2020

\
!
'
H
| Case Delails - Massachuselts Trial Court 3

 

 

1484CV00453

Hlatky, Ph.D., Lynn vs. Steward Health Care System, LLC,

 

 

 

Case Type:

Case Status:
Closed

File Date
02/07/2014

DCM Track:
F - Fast Track

Status Date:
06/26/2017

Case Judge:

Next Event:

 

Contract / Business Cases, |
!

Initiating Action: .
Services, Labor and Materials

 

[ Allintormation | Party |

Judgment! Subsequent Action/Subject | Event | Tickler | Docket | Disposition }
, : !

|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{Docket Information | 7 ~
Docket Docket Text + | ' File Image
D : | Ref Avail.
ne . Nbr
02/07/2014 Complaint} | ' 1
02/07/2014 Origin 4, Ty ype A0t, Track F.
9210712014 Civil action, cover sheet ($25,000.00) 2 |
9213/2014 SERVICE RETURNED: SteWward Health Care System, LLC (Defendant) in hand
03/03/2014 ANSWER| COUNTERCLAIM & Jury demand: Defendant Steward Healih Care 4 |
System, LLC, (all isbues) J
03/28/2014 ANSWER)4 Jury démand by Dr. Lynn Hlatky to COUNTERCLAIM of Steward 5
Health Cafe System LLC (all issues)
96/02/2014 JOINT Motion of patties for ‘a protective order 6 :
06/05/2014 Motion ie). ALLOWED (Shannon Frison, Justice) Notices mailed ,
6/5/2014 (bnteréd 8/4/14)
06/05/2014 Protective| (Order on, J) Notice Sent 6/6/14 (entered 6/4/14) 7 :
06/12/2014 Case status changed to "Nebds review for answers’ at service deadline
review
08/15/2014 Case status changed to'Nesds discovery’ at answer deadline review
09/08/2014 Piffs Motion to compel Subpoena recipient Genesys Research Institute 8
(wlopposition)
09/12/2014 Motion (P#8) schedule hearing, (Maureen B. Hogan, Justice), Dated
Q/OM14 Notices mailed 9/11/2014
10/21/2014 Piaintif Lyn Hlatky,’Ph.D. assented to MOTION for order of 9
Impoundment and Affidavit.
10/28/2014 Motion (P#9)ALLOWED (Brian A. Davis, Justice) Notices mailed
10/27/2014 (entered 10/24/14)
10/28/2014 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to Fite Supplemental Memorandum in 10
Support of{Motion ts Compel Subpeona Recipient Genesys Research
Institute (ith opp opposition)
10/31/2014 Motion (#10) ALLOWED (fan A. Davis, Justice) Dated 10/29/14
Notices mailed 10/30/20
10/31/2014 Motion (P#8) ) ALLOWED part Denied in part See order issued this date
(Davis,j) (Brian A. Davis, Justice) Notices mailed 10/34/14) (entered
10/29/14)

 

 

 

hips Awww. masscourts.org/eservices/search page.5?=GKblly2HINZMOqMgDsffoy24X22t"rY YevDvabulh320CX-9L.KBLUzasHCKSCzawid0CEWF 21...

 

wt8/24/2020

 

Docket
DB:

 

| Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court 3
Docket Text '

|

i

 

 

10/31/2014

 

ORDER régarding pfif's Motion to compel Supboana Recipient Genesys
Research inetiute {Docket #8) Dr Hlatky's Motion to compel on

October 29,2014 ALLOWED IN P-ART Dr Hiatky's Motion to compel is
DENIED if that GRI need not produce at this time copies of any
documents provided by GRI to the Office of the Attorney General
and/or the! Office of,the inspector General in conjunction with any
inquiry or investigation of GRI (see complete order Pi#11) (Davis J)
Notice serit 10/31/14 (entered 10/29/24)

 

11/21/2014

 

12/02/2014

JOINT Nation of of patties to amend the tracking order

Motion (P#12) ALLOWED. See Order issues this date (Brian A. Davis,
Justice). éentered 12/1/14) Notices mailed 12/2/2014

 

12/02/2014

ENDORSEMENT REGARDING JOINT MOTION TO AMEND TRACKING ORDER (p#12):
The deadline for completion of all discovery is extended to and

including TAN The deadifine for serving Rule 56 Motions is

extended to and indluding 8/3/15; and the deadline for filing rule 56

motions is} extended to and including 9/4/15. The parties shall appear

for a final pre trial conference on 9/13/15 at 2:00pm (Brian A.

Davis, Justice) | (dated 4214) notice sent 12/2/14

 

 

09/23/2015

JOINT Motion of parties to amend the Tracking Order

 

10/02/2015

Event Result: '
The following event: Final Pre-Trial Conference scheduled for 10/13/2015 02:00 PM has been resulted as
follows:

  
   
 

Reason: Joint request of patties

 

10/02/2015

The oxo om was generated:

Notice to hopssr tc Final Pre-Trial Conference
Sent On: [10/02/2015 14:54:11

   

 

10/02/2015

40/07/2015

10/07/2015

The following form was genlrated:

Notice to Appear for Final Pre-Trial Conference
Sent On: 0/02/2015 14; 21

Endorsement onMotion 10 extend tracking deadline(s) (#14.0): ALLOWED

 

 

for the reasons staled. . (see, arder)(entered 9/24/15) notices mailed 10/6/15

 

 

ORDER: ENLARGING TRA TRACKING ORDER DEADLINES.

(entered feats) notices ned 10/5/15

15

 

04/27/2016

04/28/2016

Attorney careers
on tis dale Kevin Thomas Peters, Esq, dismissed/withdrawn as Private Counsel for Plaintif Lynn Hiathy,

 

Altorney alpearance
On this date Jenni r Henricks, Esq. added for Plaintiff Lynn Hlatky, Ph.

   

 

04/28/2016

04/28/2016
[04/28/2016

04/28/2016

05/04/2016

 

05/02/2016

 

Attorney appearance
On this date James, ‘A Schuh, Esq. dismissed/withdrawn as Private Counsel for Other interested party Dr.
Lynn Hiathy '

Attorney sppcaiance

On this date James! A Schuh, Esq. dismissed/withdrawn as Private Counsel for Plaintiff Lynn Hlatky, Ph.D.

 

 

Altorney appearance:
On this date Kevin Thomas Peters, Esq. added for Plaintiff Lynn Htatky, Ph.D.

Plaintiff(s)|Lynn Hlatky, Ph.D. motion filed to takeDeposition
of Ralph LaTorre afler the close of discavery (wlopposition)

 

16

 

Endorsement c on 1 Notion to Was. 0): DENIED
to take deposition |as untimely in light of deft's disclosure of the witness's name for over two years
(Lauriat.J) | Notice sent 6/4/16

 

Event Result: ‘

The following event
follows: I
Result: Rescheduled
Reason: By Court prior to date

 

Final Pre-Trial Conference scheduled for 05/10/2016 02:00 PM has been resulted as

 

 

https:/Avww.masscourts.« cree page.5?x=GKbllyZHiNZM0qMgDsffayz4X2Zt*rY Y 6vDvqbulh320CX-GLKSLUZa8HCKSCzawid0C6WF21...

2Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court 3

 

05/04/2016

Docket Text File Image

: Ref Avail.

The following form was generated:

 

Notice to Appear fot Final Pre-Trial Conference
Sent On: 5/04/2018 12:37:20

 

(0701/2016

Plaintiff Lyon n Hla, 'Ph.D.'s Assented ta Motion to continue / reschedule an event pretrial conference 17

 

07/11/2016

Event Resitt:

fae following event! Final Pre-Trial Conference scheduled for 07/14/2016 02:00 PM has been resulted as
follows:

Resul Rescheduted

Reason: uest of Plaintiff

  

 

07/11/2016

 

 

The following fo Was gendrated:

|
Notice to Appeat for Final Pre-Trial Conference
Sent On: 72016 12:49:33

 

07/11/2016

Endorsement on Mation to continue (#17.0): ALLOWED
for the redsons stated andjas assented to The PTC is continue to 8/17/16 at 2:00PM
Notice sent 71216;

 

08/08/2016

 

Defendant|Steward Health Gare System, LLCs Motion for 18
Summary Judgment (with apposition)

 

08/16/2016

The following form was generated:

1
Notice to Appear!
Sent On: 08/16/2016 11:32:33

 

 

08/16/2016
08/17/2016

Joint Pre Trial | Memorandum filed: 19

Event Result:

The following event: Final Pre-Trial Conference scheduled for 08/17/2016 02:00 PM has been resulted as I
follows:

Result: Held as Scheduled '

 

08/18/2016

ORDER: Order to Appear for Jury Trial and Final Trial Conference 20

 

08/26/2016

 

(see a (dated 8/17/16) notice sent 8/18/16

Defendant|Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion to 21
enforce Protective (Order (w/opposition)

 

08/30/2016

The following form was genérated:

Notice to Appear; /

 

09/07/2016

09/08/2016

10/04/2016

Sent On: 98/30/2016 12:24: 119 |

Defendant{Steward Health Care System, LLG,’'s Motion to strike 22
materials subsmitted by pi Lynn Hlatky in opposition to Summary Judgment (wiopposition)

‘The following form wes generated: 7
Notice to Appear | -
Sent On: 09/08/2016'15:30:39 |

Event Result: ;
The following event! Motion Hearing scheduled for 10/04/2016 02:00 PM has been resulted as follows:
Result: Held as Scheduled

 

10/06/2016

Endorsement on Motion to enforce Protective Order (#21.0): ALLOWED
After hearihg and by agreement of the parties, BUT ONLY INSOFAR as the piff. and her attorneys and
agents wot disseminate document ST W005548 any further (entered 10/4/18) notices mailed 10/6/16

 

 

11/22/2016

472912016
1129/2016

11/29/2016

Matter taken under advisement
The following event: Rule 56 Hearing scheduled for 11/22/2016 02:00 PM has been resulted as follows:
Result: Held - Under advisement

Endorsement on Mation for ‘Summary Judgment (#18.0): DENIED
See Memorandum ot Decision and Order (dated 11/28/16) notice sent 11/29/16 7

Endorsement on Motion to strike 4#22.0): DENIED
as Moot (opted 11/28/16) notice sent 11/29/16

MEMOR; DUM & ORDER: 23 image

on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment: The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is
DENIED

(see P#23 for order) (daled 11/28/16) notice sent 11/29/16

 

 

 

 

https sAvww.masscourts.orgleservices/search page.6 ?x=GKbllyZHiNZMOqMgDsffoya4x2Zt"rYY6vDvqbulh320CX-9LK6LUzaSHCK9Czawd0COWF2l... 3/118/24/2020 Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court 3
Docket Docket Text ' File image
Date to Ref Avail.
Nbr.
03/08/2017 Defendar t Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion to 24
reopen discovery with regard to piff's damage claim or in the alternative, to preclude piff from offering
damages evidence at trial (w/opposition
03/17/2017 Endorse ‘on Motion in limine to reopen discovery with regard to plaintiffs damage claim or in the Image
alternative to preclude plaintiff from offering damages evidence at trial (#24.0): DENIED.
After review, Defendant Steward Health Care System LLC’s Motion to Reopen Discovery With Regard to
Plaintiff's Damages;Claim or in the Altemative to Preclude Plaintiff from Offering Damages Evidence at Trial
is DENIED as untimely. The deadlines for the completion of discovery and filing of Rule 56 motions have
passed and the parties’ Joirit Trial Memorandum was filed in August of 2016. This case is scheduled for
trial on June 5, 2017. Both parties are reminded of their duty seasonably to supplement and amend
responses under M. R . of Civ. P. 26(e) and of the risk that faifure to do so may result in the exclusion of
evidence at trial. Dated: March 13, 2017 Notice sent 3/16/17
05/01/2017 Attorney appearance
On this date Jennifer Henricks, Esq. dismissed/withdrawn for Plaintiff Lyna Hlatky, Ph.D.
05/04/2017 Attorney appearance '
On this date Allison M. O'Neil, Esq. added for Defendant Steward Health Care System, LLC,
05/10/2017 Attorney appearance '
On this date Lisa G' Arrowood, Esq. dismnissed/withdrawn as Private Counsel for Plaintiff Lynn Hlatky, Ph.D.
05/10/2017 Attorney appearance 4
On this date Lisa G Arrowood, Esq. dismissed/withdrawn as Private Counsel for Other interested party Dr. |
Lynn Hiatky : }
05/26/2017 Defendant Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion for 26
leave to add rebuttal expert witness (w/opposition)
05/26/2017 Attorney appearance
On this date Jonathan W. Young, Esq. added for Defendant Steward Health Care System, LLC,
06/26/2017 Defendant Steward'Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion in limine to 32 q
preclude plff from \presenting lay opinion testimony about contract interpretation (w/opposttion) |
05/26/2017 Defendant Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion in limine to strike 26
David Szdbo as @ witness (w/opposition) :
05/26/2017 Defendant Steward'Health Care System, LLG,'s Motion to 27
bifurcate issues to! be tried (w/opposition)
05/26/2017 Defendant, Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion for 28
teave to amend its answer (w/opposition) q
05/26/2017 Defendant:Steward |Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion in limine to 29
preclude feferences to alleged HIPAA violations or improper disclosure of personal health information t
L (wio opposition) | 1 }
05/26/2017 Defendant;Steward |Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion in 30
limine to preclude |piff from offering expert testimony (w/opposition)
05/26/2017 Defendant Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion to quash 31
trial subpoena to def's CEO Ralph DeLa Torre (wiopposition)
= 1
05/26/2017 Defendant! Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion in 32 q
limine to preclude | plif from presenting lay opinion testimony about contract interpretation
(wlopposition) }
05/26/2017 DefendantiSteward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion in limine to 33
. preclude testimony on reputational damages (w/o opposition) qi
05/26/2017 Defendant}Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion in limine to “4 }
preclude plff from presenting evidence of quantification of damages
05/30/2017 Plaintiff Lynn Hlatky, Ph.D.'s Motion in limine to 36
preclude éxamination and largument regarding Dr Hlatky's claim against Dana-Farber (w/opposition)
05/30/2017 Plaintiff Lynn Hlatky, Ph.D.'s Request for 36
for lawyer conducted Voir dire (wo opposition)
06/30/2017 Opposition 10 to deft's motion in limine to preclude testimony on reputational damages filed by Lynn 7
Hlatky, Ph.D. '
05/30/2017 Attorney appearance '
On this date Jennifer Henricks, Esq. added for Plaintiff Lynn Hlatky, Ph.D.
05/30/2017 Opposition to to deft's Motio in limine to preclude piff from presenting evidence of quantification of 38
damages fled by

 

 

 

hitps:/Awww.masscourts.org/eservices/search.page.5?x=GKbllyZHINZMqMgDsffoyz4X2Zt"ry Y6vDvqbuth320CX-9LK6LUzaSHCKSCzawtdOCeWF 21. . 41oe

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8/24/2020 1 Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court 3
Docket Docket Text ! File image
Date ' Ref Avail.
_! . Nbr

05/30/2017 Request for Jury Instructions 39
Applies To: Hlatky, Ph.D., Lynn (Plaintiff)

05/30/2017 Event Result:
The fotlowing event: Final Trial Conference scheduled for 05/30/2017 02:00 PM has been resulted as
follows:
Result: Held as Scheduled

06/30/2017 The following form was generated:
Notice to Appear,
Sent On: 05/30/2017 16: M2 02

08/05/2017 Event Result:
The following event. Hearing ‘on Motion(s) in Limine scheduled for 06/05/2017 10:00 AM has been resulted
as follows; '
Result: Held as Scheduled '

06/05/2017 Endorsement on Motion in limine to preclude (#29.0}: References to Alleged HIPPA Violations or Improper Image
Disclosure’ ‘of Personal Health Information ALLOWED
Based on counsel's representations at today's Final Trial Conference, the plaintiff does not oppose this
motion and therefore the Motion is ALLOWED (dated 5/30/17) notice sent 6/5/17

06/05/2017 Proposed special jury questions 40 Image

! 5

Applies % Steward Health Care System, LLC, (Defendant)

06/05/2017 Amended Answer ' | 441 Image
Applies To: Steward Health Care System, LLC, (Defendant)

06/08/2017 Endorsement or on Motion to bifurcate trial (#27.0): ALLOWED Image f
After review and hearing, the motion is ALLOWED because | find in the circumstances of this case, as
stated on the record, bifurcation will further the interests in expedition and judicial economy, and avoid the :
risk of juror confusion and prejudice, particularly given the threshold liability question which was the subject F
of the Court’ s December 1, 201 6 summary judgment decision. Dated: 6/5/17 Notice sent 6/5/17

06/06/2017 Endorsement on Motion for Laave to Add Rebuttal Expert Witness (#25.0): DENIED image
After review and hearing, the motion is DENIED with respect to the trial on liability for the reasons stated on
the record! The ‘court reserves judgment on whether Mrs. Eddy will be permitted to testify as a rebuttal
expert witess during the damages trial (dated 6/5/17)

06/06/2017 Endorsement on Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint (#28.0): ALLOWED image
After hearing and review, thé motion is Allowed for the reasons stated on the record (dated 6/5/17)

06/06/2017 Endorsement on Motion in limine to Preclude Plaintiff from Presenting Lay Opinion Testimony About Image §
Contract Interpretation (#32/0): ALLOWED
After review and hearing, the motion is ALLOWED for the reasons stated on the record (dated 6/5/17)

06/06/2017 Endorsem nt on Mation to Quash Trial Subpoena to Defendant's CEO Ralph De La Torre (#31.0): DENIED Image
Alter revielv and hearing, the motion is DENIED for the reasons stated on the record (dated 6/5/17)

06/06/2017 Endorsement ‘on Motion in limine to Preclude Examination and Argument Regarding Dr. Hlatky’s Claim Image |!
Against Dana Faber (#35.0): ALLOWED. }
After revielv and hearing, the motion is ALLOWED with respect to the liability trial. The court reserves }
judgment gn whether any such argument and examination will be precluded during the damages trial (dated i
6/5/17)

06/06/2017 Party(s) file Stipulation of Dismissal 42 Image ;
(filed 6/5/1/7) as to counterclaim with prejudice and without costs JUDGMENT entered on docket pursuant E
to Mass RiCiv P 58(a) as amended and notice sent to parties pursuant ta Mass R Civ P 77(d) q
Applies To; Steward Health care System, LLC, (Defendant); Hlatky, Dr. Lynn (Other interested party) :

06/06/2017 Endorsement on Jn Motion i in limine to Strike David Szabo as a Witness (#26.0): No Action Taken Image
After review and hearing, the court reserves decision on this motion until the time of trial. Counsel Shall
make no reference to fo any anticipated testimony of Mr. Szabo during their openings (dated 6/5/17) i

06/06/2017 Event Result:
The following event; Jury Trial scheduled for 06/06/2017 08:30 AM has been resulted as follows:
Result: Held a ‘as Scheduled

06/07/2017 Event Restit: I
‘The following event: Jury Trial scheduled for 06/07/2017 09:00 AM has been resulted as follows: i
Result: Held as Scheduled + 4

06/08/2017 EventResuit | i
The following event: Jury Trial scheduled for 06/08/2017 09:00 AM has been resulted as follows: iq
Result: Held as Scheduled

https:www.masscourts.org/eservices/Search.page.52x=GKbllyZHINZMOqMgDsffoyz4X2z1"r'Y Y6vDvqbulh320CX-9L K6LUza8HCKSCzawtdOC6WF2I... 518/24/2020 : Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court 3
Docket Docket Text’ File Image
Date i Ref Avail.
fl Nbr.
06/09/2017 Event Rest It:
The following event: Jury Trial scheduled for 06/09/2017 09:00 AM has been resulted as follows:
Result: Held as Scheduled |
06/12/2017 Event Result: ;
The following event: Jury Trial scheduled for 06/12/2017 09:00 AM has been resulted as follows:
Resull: Held as Scheduled
06/13/2017 Event Result: +
The following event: Jury Trial scheduled for 06/13/2017 09:00 AM has been resulted as follows:
Result: Held as Scheduled '
06/14/2017 Verdict of jury or party 43
special form * :
06/14/2017 Renewed Motion ' 45
Plaintiffs Renewed Mation for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (filed 6/13/17) The motion is moot in light
of the jury's verdict on liability. Dated: 6/13/17
06/14/2017 Defendant! Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion for Directed Verdict filed and for Compulsory 44
Nonsuit (filed 6/13/17)
The Court defers.ruling on this motion. Dated: 6/1317
06/15/2017 Event Result:
The following event; Jury Trial scheduled for 06/15/2017 09:00 AM has been resulted as follows:
Result: Held as | Scheduled '
06/15/2017 Joint Pre-Trial Hemorendam filed: 46
(entered spun
08/15/2017 Event Result:
The following event: Hearing ‘on Motion(s) in Limine scheduled for 08/15/2017 03:00 PM has been resulted
as follows:
Result: Held as; Scheduled
06/15/2017 Defendant Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion in 47
limine to purr plff from offering evidence related to Grant's and other damages belonging to the
institution '
for which she worked i
08/15/2017 Steward Hi lth Care ‘System, LLC,'s Memorandum 48
In support of its renewed “Motion in Limine to preclude plff from offering expert testimony
06/15/2017 Opposition to Defendant's motion in limine to exclude plaintiff from offering evidence related to grants and = 49 Image
other damages (P#47) filed by Lyan Hlatky, Ph.D.
06/16/2017 Endorsement on Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff from Presenting Evidence of Quantification Damages Image
(#34.0): Né Action Taken
on this mation fr in light of Defense Counsel's representation on the record that il is superseded by
Defendant's Motion in limine to Exclude Plaintiff from offering evidence related to Grants and other
Damages (P#47) filed today (dated 6/15/17) notice sent 616/17
06/16/2017 EventResuit: |
The following event: Jury Trial scheduled for 06/16/2017 09:00 AM has been resulted as follows:
Result: Held as Scheduled
06/16/2017 Renewed Motion: | 50
' :
Defendant|Steward Heath Care System LLC's Renewed Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff from offering
expert testimony (wiapposition) - After review and hearing the motion is ALLOWED for the reasons stated
onthe record. This ruling isiwithout prejudice to the plaintiff offering as a lay witness during the damages
phase of the trial'on the consequential damages she alleged she suffered as a result of the defendant's
breach of contract and/or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Dated: 6/15/17
Notice sent 6N6N7, +
08/19/2017 Endorsement ‘on Motion in limine to preclude (#35.0): examination and argument regarding Dr. Hlatky's Image
claim against Dana-Farber DENIED.
After further hearing, the motion in limine to preclude exam and argument regarding Dr. Hlatky's claim
against Dana-Farber as evidence of his reputation is DENIED during the damages phase of the trial.
Dated: 6/15/17 ° 1
06/19/2017 Endorsement on Motion in limine to preclude (#33.0): testimony on reputational damages ALLOWED Image
After review and hearing, the motion is ALLOWED for the reasons stated on the record. Dated: 6/15/17
Notice sent 6/16/17
it '
' 1

 

 

 

hitps:ihwww.masscourts.orgleservices/search page 5?x=GKbllyZHINZMOqMgDs ffoyz4X22t""¥ YovDvqbulh320CX-OL KELUzaBHCK@Czawtd0CBWF21...

eit8/24/2020 1 Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court 3

 

Docket Docket Text | |
Date yo 1

 

06/19/2017 Endorsement on Motion in limine to exclude (#47.0): plaintiff from offering evidence related to grants and
other damages belonging to the institution for which she worked ALLOWED
After review and_haring, the motion is allowed with respect to the plaintiff's $24,444,404 million damage
figure allegedly attributable to the loss of future grant funding and $11,793,793 damage figure allegedly
attributable to the restart of her lab identified in the plaintiff's May 30, 2017 Supplemental Answers to
Interrogatéries, | Asistated on the record, these damages claims are highly speculative and neither the
amounts calculated nor the appropriateness of the methodologies used to perform the calculations are
supported|by expert testimony. Additionally, with respect to the damage figure allegedly attributable to the
loss of future grant funding, the plaintiff does not dispute that even if she were to receive future grants, she
would not be the actual recipient of those grant funds. As to the $11,793,793 damage calculation, fully
$10.2 million of it appears to be based on a claulation prepared by Steward Health Care Systems LLC in
connection with Genesys Research Institute's bankruptcy for a purpose other than the one for which plaintiff
seeks to admit it‘and the plaintiff has made no showing that she has personal knowledge of its basi
Indeed, pie herself testified during her deposition that the $10.2 million is a "speculative or fictitious
number." his ruling is without prejudice to the plaintiff offering evidence as a lay witness during the
damages tnase of the trial on the consequential damages she alleges she suffered as a result of the
defendantis breach|of contract and/or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Dated:
June 15, 2017 Notice sent 6/16/17

 

 

cerraia0T? Event Rest
ng event ny “Til scheduled for 08/19/2017 0:00 AM has been resulted as follows:
bas ScHedule

   

 

  

06/20/2017 Defendant. Steward! alt are System, LLC,’s Motion for
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict: The Motion is DENIED (dated 6/19/17) notice sent 6/20/17

51

 

06/20/2017 Event Result:
The following event: Jury Trial scheduled for 06/20/2017 09:00 AM has been resulted as follows:
Result: Held as Scheduled |

 

06/20/2017 Defendant Steward'tealih cue System, LLC,'s_ Motion for
Renewed {directed verdict and compulsory nonsuit & Denied

 

52

Image

 

06/20/2017 Defendant Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion to
bar pifi from recovering as) damages any amount deposited in the Bank Account identified during plff's
testimony | No :action taken
as deft's counsel withdrew motion at podium during tial

53

image

 

 

06/21/2017 Event Result: oo
The following event: Jury Trial scheduled for 06/21/2017 09:00 AM has been resulted as foltows:
Result: Held as Scheduled

 

08/22/2017 Exhibits returned per Order of the Clerk

Exhibit Receipt |
Sent On: Q6/22/2017 14: 08 40

06/22/2017 JUDGMENT enter on this date.: Judgment on Jury Verdict After Jury Verdict Presiding: Hon. Karen
Green ,

Judgment For,, Lynn Hlatky, Ph.D.

1
Judgment Against: Steward Health Care System, LLC,
i

Terms of Judgment: Interest Begins: 02/07/2014 Jdgmnt Date: 06/22/2017 Interest Rate: .12 Daily Interest
Rate: .000329
Damages: Damage'A 2637500.00 Filing Fees: 280.00

Judgment Total: 31,805,944.86 entered on docket pursuant to Mass R Civ P 58(a) and notice sent to
parties pursuant to Mass R CwP P7708)

 

55

 

 

 

06/22/2017 Event Res! it '
‘The following event: Jury Trial scheduled for 06/22/2017 09:00 AM has been resulted as follows:
Result: Held las Scheduled

 

06/23/2017 Exhibits Returned to.Scott R. Magee, Esquire (Defendant) from courtroom on 06/22/2017
The undersigned attorney hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the exhibit list and of the following
exhibits that were introduced into evidence in the above captioned civil case: 1-45 (See attached list)

Image

 

F
07/03/2017 Defendant's Notice of intent't ‘to file motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to amend the
judgment

 

steward Health Care System, LLC, (Defendant)

07/03/2017 Defendant's Notice of intent'to file motion for a new trial

Applies To

Applies To} Steward Health Care System, LLC, (Defendant)

57

 

 

httpsuwww masscourts.org/eservices/search.page.6?x=GKbllyZHINZMOqMgDsffoyz4X2ZI*rY Y6vDvq bulh320CX-9L K6L UzaSHCK@CzawtdOC&WFZ1...

 

TAN8/24/2020

Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court 3

 

Docket
Date

07/14/2017

07/26/2017

Docket Text |

Plaintiff's Notice of intent to file motion to amend judgment
1

Applies To} Hlatky, Ph.D. Lynn (Plaintiff)

  

Judgment (w/opposition)

 

07/27/2017

Plaintiff al Hlatky, Ph.D.'s Motion to amend the

Defendant|Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion for
a new Trial (wlopposition),

 

07/27/2017

Defendant|Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Motion for
Judgment jnotwithstanding the verdict or to amend the Judgment (w/opposition)

 

08/16/2017

08/22/2017

Plaintiff Lynn Hiaticy Ph.D.'s ‘s Submission of
Bill of Costs

Opposition to Plait if Lynn Hliatky's Bill of Costs and Request to be Heard Pursuant to Rule 54(d) filed by
Steward Hi lth Care System, LLC,

 

 

02/09/2018

The following form was genérated:

Notice to Appear '' '
Sent On: 92/09/2018 08:44:47

 

02/12/2018

ORDER: Notice of Hearing and Procedural Order
(see P#63} (dated 22ng) notice sent 2/13/18)

Judge: Green, Hon.iKaren ‘

Image

 

02/12/2018

Event Restilt

Judge: Gréen, Hon.|Karen
The following event: , Post-Judament Hearing scheduled for 02/22/2018 02:00 PM has been resulted as
follows:

Result: Regcheduled

Reason: Request of, Defendant

 

02/12/2018

The Following fon form was. generated:

Notice to Appear 1
Sent On: gen2i2018 15.43:; 8

 

0242/2018

Attorney appearance
On this date Kevin F Martin, Esq, added for Defendant Steward Health Care System, LLC,

 

02/20/2018

02/20/2018

Lynn Hlatl 1 Phi D's Memorandum
Bench Memorandum on Ferrer V Trustees of Univ of Pennsylvania pursuant to this court's February
12, 2018 Order

Defendant/Steward Health Care System, LLC,'s Submission of ~
Supplemental post judgment brief

65

 

02/28/2018

Plaintiff Lynn. Hlatky, Ph.D.'s Motion to
disregard fonearpllant filings Pursuant to Massachusetts Superior Court Rule 9A(b)(6) (w/opposition)

66

 

03/01/2018

Matter taken under advisement

Judge: Green, Hon. Karen

qe following event:  Post-Juidgment Hearing scheduled for 03/01/2018 02:00 PM has been resulted as
follows:

Result: Held - Unde advisement

 

03/05/2018

03/30/2018

Endorsement on Motion to Disregard Noncompliant Filings (#66.0): DENIED
After reviely, the motion is DENIED for the reasons stated at the hearings (dated 3/1/18) notice sent 3/5/18

Judge: Green, I Hon. Karen |

General girespondence regarding Letter to the Court from the Plaintiff requesting leave of Court to file
affidavit on, damages

67

Image f

 

04/13/2018

Lynn Hlatky, Ph.D.'s Request for leave to file the affidavit on damages (filed 3/30/18)
DENIED. Dated: 4/9/18 Notice sent 4/12/18

Judge: Green, | Hon. Karen ,

68

 

04/23/2018

Endorsement on Motion to amend the judgment (#59.0): ALLOWED
See Memorandum of Decision and Order. Dated: 4/18/18 Notice sent 4/23/18

Judge: Green, Hon. Karen
Applies To} Hlatky, Ph.D., Lynn (Plaintiff)

 

 

 

 

hitpsuiiwww.masscourts.org/eservices search page. 6x=GKbllyZHINZMOqMgDsffoy24X221"1Y Y6vDvqbulh320CX-9L K6LUzaBHCK@CzawtdOCEWFZI..

Bit8/24/2020

aio
ER
i

' ' Case Details - Massachusetts Trial Court 3
Docket Text |

File

 

Image

Ref Avail,

Nbr.

 

04/23/2018

MEMORANDUM & ORDER:

OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT: ORDER - For the foregoing reasons,
itis hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Judgment be ALLOWED. The June 22, 2017 Judgment is
AMENDED to reflect that prejudgment shall accrue from December 31, 2012. Dated: ‘April 18, 2018

Notice sent 423i 8.

Judge: Green, Hon, Karen |

Judge: Green, Hon! licaren |

69

Image

 

04/23/2018

Endorsement on motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict (#61.0): or to Amend the Judgment Other
actiontaken

Motion forjudgment notwithstanding the verdict is DENIED; Motion for new trial is Conditionally ALLOWED.
See Memorandum of Decision and Order. Dated: 4/18/18 Notice sent 4/23/18

Judge: Green, Hon. Karen |
Applies Te: Hlatky, Ph.D., Lynn (Plaintif)

 

04/23/2018

04/23/2018

04/25/2018

MEMORANDUM & ORDER:

ON DEFENDANT STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM LLC'S MOTION PURSUANT TO RULES 50(b)
AND §9(e) FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT OR TO AMEND JUDGMENT AND
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEWTRIAL: ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Steward
Health Cafe Systemi'LLC's Motion Pursuant to rule 50(b) and 59(e) for Judgment Notwithstanding the
Verdict or fo Amend the Judgment is DENIED. Defendant Steward Health Care System LLC's Motion for a
New Trial is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. specifically, the motion is DENIED with respect to
liability. The motion for a new trial is ALLOWED on the issue of damags only unless, within thirty (30) days
of this Order, Hlatky notifies!the court in writing that she accepts a reduced verdict of $10,200,000, Dated:
April 18, 2018 Mater sent 4/23/18

Judge: Green, Hon. ‘Karen '
Applies To! Hlatky, ®h.D., Lynn (Plaintiff)

Judge: Green, Hon.'Karen |

Judge: Green, Hon! karen | '

Endorsement on Submission of Bill of Costs (#61.1): ALLOWED
See Order! Dated: 4/18/18 [Notice sent 4/23/18

Judge: Green, Hon.!Karen '

   

70

 

 

 

ORDER: After review and hearing, Plaintiff Lynn Hlatky’s Bill of Costs is ALLOWED. Pursuant to Mass. R.
Of ChB Ss(e), fag tha the costs sought, including forthe taking of he referenced depostions, were
reasonably necessary.

Dated: April 18, 2018 Notice sent 4/23/18

i
Judge: Green, \Hoh.Karen | I

 

71

 

05/04/2018

06/04/2018

05/14/2018

 

Plaintiff Lyha Hiatky, Ph.D.'s EMERGENCY Motion to
Extend Plaintiffs Deadline t for Accepting or Denying Remittitur

Plaintiff's Notice of intent to fi lle mation for Reconsideration to Correct Error of Law and Deny Defendant's
Motion for'a New Tal 1

Applies To} Hlatky, Ph.D., Lynn (Plaintiff)

Defendant{Steward | Health Care System, LLC,'s Memorandum in
Partial Opposition to Plaintiff's emergency motion to extend Plaintiffs deadline for accepting or denying
remittitur (P#72) '

 

74

 

05/23/2018

Endorsement on Metin to! Extend Plaintiffs Deadline for Accepting or Denying Remittitur (472.0):
ALLOWED
The Motion for eitension is ALLOWED (dated 5/20/18) notice sent 5/23/18

Judge: Gréen, Hon, IKaren

 

05/23/2018

Notice of focket entry received from Appeals Court

Please take note ‘that, with respect to the Petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, s. 118 filed for Steward Health
Care Systém LLC by Attoméy Kevin Martin. (Paper #1) on May 21, 2018, the following order was entered
on the docket: RE#1:|Appellate proceedings on the defendant's petition are stayed to 06/20/2018.
Defendant's status report due 06/20/2018 concerning the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and the
Parties’ motions for entry of final judgment pending before the Superior Court. Notice/Attest/Green, J.

75

 

05/24/2018

 

|
ot

Plaintiff tytn Hlatky, Ph.D.'s_ Motion for
ror of Law and Deny Defendant's Motion for a New Trial (w/opposition)

 

 

htips:/ww.masscourts.orgleservicesisearch page-5?x=GKbllyZHINZMOqMgDsfioy24X2Zt'rY YevDvqbulh320CX-OL KBLUzaSHCKSCzawtd0CBWFZI...
' I

 

9/118/24/2020 Case Delails - Massachusetts Trial Court 3
Docket Docket Text.’ File Image
Date : Ref Avail.
‘ Nbr.
06/20/2018 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: 77 Image

‘on plffs Motion for reconsideration to correct error of Law and deny deft's Motion for a new Trial
Denied
Notice Sent 6/21/18 I

Judge: Green, Han; Karen
Judge: Green, Hon, Karen ,
Judge: Green, Hon! Karen , :

Judge: Green, Hon: Karen 1
ns '

 

06/22/2018 Notice of docket entry received from Appeals Court 78 Image
(2018-J-0216) Please take note that, with respect to the Status report filed for Steward Health Care System
LLC by Attorney