text:
Merryman brought ejectment, in April, 1860, against Bourne and several others for a parcel of land situated within the corporate limits of the city of San Francisco, as defined by her charter of 1851. The case was tried by the court without a jury, by stipulation of parties in writing. The facts found by the court, and its conclusions of law, were as follows:1st. That on the 15th day of April, 1847, there was duly issued by Edwin Bryant, then alcalde of the town of San Francisco, to S. E. Woodworth, one of the defendants, in due form, a grant in fee of a one hundred vara lot,  within the corporate limits of said town, which embraced the premises described in the complaint in this action, and which grant was registered and recorded in a proper book of records deposited in the office, or custody, or control of the recorder of the county of San Francisco, on or before the 3d day of April, A.D. 1850.
2d. That soon after this grant was issued the said S. E. Woodworth entered into possession of the said lot, and inclosed the same with a fence, and so continued in possession for some months then next ensuing.
3d. That subsequently the fence, having either fallen down or been removed by trespassers, one Fulton, claiming under a grant issued by one Colton, a justice of the peace, for said lot, entered on a portion of the lot; and thereupon Woodworth, in the year 1850, brought an action of ejectment against Fulton in the Court of First Instance, at San Francisco, to recover the possession of the premises, in which action judgment was rendered in favor of Woodworth, on which a writ of restitution issued, by virtue of which Woodworth was restored to the possession, after which Fulton appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of California, by which court the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded; whereupon a final judgment was afterwards rendered in the lower court in favor of Fulton, and by virtue of process issued thereon Fulton was restored to his possession, and he and those claiming under him continued in possession until they were ejected as hereinafter stated.
4th. That in January, 1852, the said S. E. Woodworth, by a good and sufficient deed of bargain and sale, conveyed the said one hundred vara lot, including the premises in controversy, to F. A. Woodworth, now deceased, who, in the years 1853 and 1854, instituted in the District Court of the 4th judicial district in San Francisco, actions of ejectment against some of the parties in possession of the premises claiming under Fulton, and recovered judgments on which writs of restitution were issued and served, by virtue of which F. A. Woodworth was restored to the possession of the premises occupied by the defendants in said writs, and the remaining persons in possession of said premises under said Fulton, and who were not included in said ejectment suits, on being threatened with suits by said F. A. Woodworth to recover the possession of the premises held by them, and with a view to avoid expensive litigation, acknowledged the said Woodworth's title and took leases from him; at the expiration of which leases they surrendered the possession to him, Woodworth; and the possession of said Woodworth, so obtained under writs of restitution and by surrender, was fairly and honestly acquired, without force, fraud, or surprise.
5th. That on the 12th December, 1849, Colton, justice of the peace, already mentioned, issued a grant to one Atwill for the said one hundred vara lot, and on the 11th February, 1850, Atwill conveyed to the said Fulton whatever title he acquired by the grant in and to the premises in controversy; and the plaintiff, before and at the time of the institution of this suit, had acquired and held by regular mesne conveyances all the title of Fulton.
6th. That at the time of the commencement of this action the said F. A. Woodworth, and the other defendants under a license from him, were in possession of the premises in controversy.
1st. That the grant from Colton, the justice of the peace, to Atwill was void, and conveyed no title to the premises; and that the judgment in the suit of Woodworth v. Fulton was in no respect an affirmance of the validity of the title of Fulton, but only a disaffirmance of the validity of the title of Woodworth, the plaintiff in that suit, as the title was then set up and held by him.
2d. That as against the defendants in this suit, peaceably in possession of the premises in controversy, the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title; that the title set up by him was invalid, and the judgment aforesaid did not estop the defendants to deny the validity of said plaintiff's title.
3d. That the judgment aforesaid was a decision that the defendant Woodworth's title, as then held by him, was invalid, but it did not estop him to set up any title to said premises acquired since the said judgment.
Judgment was accordingly rendered for the defendants, and the plaintiffs brought the case to this court on writ of error.
The decision by the Supreme Court of California  in the case of Woodworth v. Fulton, was a final judgment, involving and determining the invalidity of the grant which is relied upon as a defence to this action. That determination was (and is) not only the law of that case but the law of that piece of property.
The defendant, Woodworth, and all claiming under him, as against Fulton and the plaintiff (here), who is in privity with him, are barred from asserting that title. The same evidence which Woodworth relied upon in Woodworth v. Fulton, i. e., the alcalde grant, is now relied on as a defence to this action.  The facts in Woodworth v. Fulton, as to Woodworth's title and right of possession, are the same as in this case, and the decision in that case was upon the law of the alcalde grant.  It will not be pretended that while Fulton and his tenants and privies were in possession, under the writ of restitution and judgment in Woodworth v. Fulton, they were trespassers on the said premises, or that a judgment for mesne profits could have been recovered against them? The law after a solemn determination placed them there, and they were therefore rightfully there. When did that right cease? Never by any act of theirs.
The facts found as to the mode in which F. A. Woodworth obtained possession of part of the premises from Fulton's tenants his threats and compromises-show a tampering with them; and, having entered under our tenants, he himself becomes our tenant, and is estopped from asserting that the plaintiff is not entitled to possession.
Conceding that, by the later decisions of California, an alcalde grant, such as was here set up, may be valid, those decisions cannot affect the prior unreversed case of Woodworth v. Fulton, in which it was held otherwise.
So far as the act of Congress of July 1st, 1864, is relied on, it is enough to say, that it was passed more than four years after the institution of this suit. Of course, it cannot be considered.
Mr. G. H. Williams, contra.
^1 A one hundred vara lot is a lot 275 feet square.
^2 For a more minute statement of the provisions of the Van Ness ordinance and act of Congress, see Lynch v. Bernal, supra, p. 315.
^4 Broom's Legal Maxims, 229; Eastman v. Cooper, 15 Pickering, 285; Baker v. Rand, 13 Barbour, 152; Burkland v. Brown, 5 Sandford, 134.
^5 Betts v. Starr, 5 Connecticut, 550; Pleak v. Chambers, 7 B. Monroe, 566.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Notice: THIS DECISION IS UNREPORTED AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW. COUNSEL IS CAUTIONED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THIS CASE.
On December 14, 2017, the plaintiff, Tara Beardsley, Executrix of the Estate of Ruth Grant, commenced a six-count action against the defendant, Jamark Construction, LLC, alleging that the defendant’s dump truck fatally injured Ruth Grant in her vehicle at the intersection of Main Street and Old Waterbury Road in Southbury on May 13, 2016. The complaint contains six counts, count one alleging negligence, count two alleging negligent entrustment, count three alleging negligent hiring, count four alleging negligent supervision, count five alleging negligent training and count six alleging negligent retention.
Counts two through six incorporate the allegations of the first count into counts. Count two alleges negligent entrustment against Jamark Construction, LLC by additionally alleging that Jamark Construction, LLC negligently entrusted a dump truck to Mr. Foley “when they knew or should have known of Foley’s inexperience and/or incompetence as a truck driver, his background and his negligent driving habits.” The count alleges that the defendant’s negligent entrustment of its vehicle to Mr. Foley was a “substantial factor” in Ms. Grant’s death. Count three through six repeat the allegations that Jamark Construction, LLC “knew or should have known of Foley’s inexperience and/or incompetence as a truck driver, his background and his negligent diving habits,” and alleges that Jamark Construction, LLC negligently hired (count three), supervised (count four), trained (count five), and retained (count six) Mr. Foley. Counts seven and eight are alleged against Mr. Foley and are not subject to the motion to strike. The [*4] plaintiff seeks monetary damages in her prayer for relief.
“The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 498, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003). “[T]he moving party admits all facts well pleaded.” RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp. et al., 231 Conn. 381, 383 n.2, 650 A.2d 153 (1994). “If facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health, 281 Conn. 277, 294, 914 A.2d 996 (2007). “A motion to strike is properly granted if the complaint alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, supra, 498.
“[A] motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court . . . [The court] construe[s] the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency . . . Thus, [i]f facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied . . . Moreover, [the court notes] that [w]hat is necessarily implied [in an allegation] need not be expressly alleged . . . It is fundamental that in determining the sufficiency of a complaint [*5] challenged by a defendant’s motion to strike, all well-pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from the allegations are taken as admitted . . . Indeed, pleadings must be construed broadly and realistically, rather than narrowly and technically.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Geysen v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 322 Conn. 385, 398, 142 A.3d 227 (2016). “A motion to strike is properly granted if the complaint alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Santoroso v. Bristol Hospital, 308 Conn. 338, 349, 63 A.3d 940 (2013).
The plaintiff counters that “courts have not required the plaintiff, as the defendant argues, to allege facts that show specific driving habits of the party to whom the vehicle was entrusted.” Instead, [*6] the plaintiff refers to the decision of Morillo v. Georges, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV 15-6058761-S (December 31, 2015, Peck, J.) [61 Conn. L. Rptr. 541, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3191] for the proposition that allegations that an employer “failed to conduct a background check” into “driving history,” “contact former employers, ” and “failed to require [the employee] perform a “driving test” were sufficient to plead a negligent entrustment cause of action absent specific driving habits on behalf of the employee. The plaintiff contends that she has alleged facts in support of the Morillo factors in count one of the complaint, which was incorporated by reference, into count two. The plaintiff argues the additional allegations about Jamark’s failure to train and the vehicle’s defective condition bolster her negligent entrustment claim. Finally the plaintiff contends that the present case is factually or legally distinguishable from the authority relied upon by Jamark Construction, LLC in support of its motion to strike.
“Within Connecticut and other Restatement states, two general lines of negligent entrustment cases have emerged. The first line of cases involves the entrustment of an automobile to an incompetent driver, who then drives the vehicle in a dangerous way and injures another. In the automobile context, it has been stated that Connecticut law is clear that liability can only be imposed if the defendant entrusts the vehicle to the driver . . . [U]nder more attenuated circumstances, there remains the requirement that the original entrustor have knowledge of the entrustee’s propensities that caused harm to the plaintiffs. Other cases further support the conclusion that negligent entrustment claims must fail if the defendant lacked knowledge of the entrustee’s propensities . . . The second line of negligent entrustment decisions involves the entrustment of something other than a vehicle in a circumstance where an entrustor should know that there is cause why a chattel ought not to be entrusted to another.” (Citations omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.) [*9] Id.
In the present case, the plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one through twenty-seven of count one into count two, which alleges negligent entrustment. In paragraph 24 subparagraphs rr of the second count, the plaintiff alleges that Jamark Construction, LLC “fail[ed] to check its employee’s previous three-year driver history check with previous employers within the past 3 years minimum, check medical/physical qualifications, drug screening, continuing obligations with annual reviews/certifications, road test or equivalent and fail[ed] to have its employees demonstrate competence” in violation of 49 C.F.R. Section 391.
The plaintiff is correct that the court in Morillo v. Georges, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV-15-6058761, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3191, found that allegations that the employer failed to conduct adequate background checks and driving tests may be “sufficient to imply that driver’s status was readily discoverable.” By extension, the Morillo court in finding those factually allegations legally sufficient, in essence may be concluding that the plaintiff alleged that the employer had constructive notice of the driver’s propensities but chose to ignore that constructive notice. Nevertheless, the Morillo court found that “although [the] bare [*10] bones factual allegations are sufficient by implication to survive a motion to strike, at some point in the court of this litigation the plaintiffs herein will undoubtedly be required to present a more specific evidentiary foundation for their allegations of . . . negligent entrustment by the defendant . . .” Accordingly, the plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 24 subparagraph rr are legally sufficient to allege that Jamark Construction, LLC had constructive notice of Foley’s driving propensities but chose to ignore that constructive notice by failing to check the appropriate background and driving history before allowing Foley to drive its vehicle. Such allegations are not conclusory. For these reasons, count two alleging negligent entrustment is legally sufficient under Morillo and the court denies the motion as to count two of the amended complaint.
The court next addresses whether the plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to state claims against Jamark Construction, LLC of negligent hiring in count three, negligent supervision in count four and negligent retention in count six, of the amended complaint, or whether those claims are [*11] conclusory. Jamark Construction, LLC argues that the plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts to support claims for negligent hiring in count three, negligent supervision in count four, negligent retention in count six. The corporation argues that the plaintiff “has alleged no facts whatsoever that, if proven, would support a claim for negligent hiring, supervision and/or retention.” “[T]here is nothing in the Complaint that would, if proven, establish that Foley was somehow incompetent to perform the job specified, nor are any facts pleaded to establish that Jamark had the occasion to know of any incompetence on the part of Foley.” “The complete absence of any specific supporting allegations or any allegation of fact that would establish the foreseeability of defendants’ employees’ commission of an injury-causing tort is fatal to the Plaintiff’s claims for negligent hiring and retention.” Jamark Construction, LLC further argues that the pleaded allegations are conclusory.
“Whether the claim is for negligent hiring, negligent supervision or negligent retention, a plaintiff must allege facts that support the element of (foreseeability). The ultimate test of the existence of the duty [*12] to use care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if it is not exercised . . . It is well settled that defendants cannot be held liable for their alleged negligent hiring, training, supervision or retention of an employee accused of wrongful conduct unless they had notice of said employee’s propensity for the type of behavior causing the plaintiff’s harm.” (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Elbert v. Connecticut Yankee Council, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-0100456879-S, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1924 (July 16, 2004, Arnold, J.). “By that is not meant that one charged with negligence must be found actually to have foreseen the probability of harm or that the particular injury which resulted was foreseeable, but the test is, would the ordinary [person] in the defendant’s position knowing what he knew or should have known anticipate that harm of the general nature of that suffered was likely to result[.]” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Allen v. Cox, 285 Conn. 603, 610, 942 A.2d 296 (2008). Beside the element of foreseeability, the additional elements necessary to support the claims of negligent hiring, negligent supervision and negligent retention are addressed [*13] below.
“The tort of negligent hiring ‘extends to any situation where a third party is injured by an employer’s own negligence in failing to select an employee fit or competent to perform the services of employment.” Loglisci v. Stamford Hospital, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford, Docket No. CV-08-5009309-S, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 387 (February 27, 2011, Jennings J.T.R.) (dismissing how negligent hiring, supervision and retention are separate causes of action) citing Shore v. Stonington, 187 Conn. 147, 155, 444 A.2d 1379 (1982) (for the elements of negligent hiring). “[On the context of negligent hiring, courts generally rule that an employer cannot be held liable for the conduct of its employees that injure a third party if the employer could not have foreseen that the employee would engage in such conduct.” (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.) Hearn v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-0200466339-S, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2500 (April 2, 2007, Licari, J.). “Our Supreme Court has interpreted this foreseeability requirement as one in which the employee knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity to engage in the alleged harmful conduct.” (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.) [*14] MoriIlo v. Georges, supra Superior Court, Docket No, CV-15-6058761-S, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3191.
In the present case, the plaintiff responds that count three is a legally sufficient pleading for negligent hiring against Jamark Construction, LLC. In support of its argument, the plaintiff references some Superior Court decisions which declined to strike negligent hiring counts where the plaintiff had alleged that the employer allowed the employee to operate a vehicle without first having conducted a background check or driving test. Like the negligent entrustment claim, the court in Morillo v. Georges, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV-15-0058761-S, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3191 “[c]onstru[ed] [those] allegations [in the negligent hiring claim] in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], including those fact necessarily implied therefore,” and concluded that the allegations that the employer performed no driving test or adequate background check on the driver meant “the plaintiff [had] sufficiently alleged that [the employer] knew or should have known that its driver . . . was not fit or competent to operate a taxi-cab that pre-existed his hiring by [the employer].” Accordingly, the current plaintiff’s allegations that in paragraph 24 subparagraph rr that Jamark Construction, LLC failed [*15] to conduct a driving or adequate background checks are legally sufficient to imply that the employer had constructive knowledge of Foley’s fitness but chose to ignore it. Thus, the court finds that count three is legally sufficient in pleading Jamark Construction, LLC’s constructive knowledge of Foley’s fitness and disregard of the same and the motion to strike count three is denied.
“Under Connecticut law, an employer may be liable for the negligent supervision of employees.” Seguro v. Cummiskey, 82 Conn. App. 186, 191, 844 A.2d 224 (2004). “In order to plead a cause of action sounding in negligent supervision, a plaintiff must plead injury by an employee whom the defendant had a duty to supervise; failed to supervise and whom the defendant knew or should have known would cause the injury.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Andreoni v. Forest Enterprises, Inc., Superior court, judicial district of Stamford, Docket No. CV 07-6000743-S, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1047 (April 21, 2010, Brazzel-Massaro, J.).
In the present case, the plaintiff responds that count four is legally sufficient in pleading a negligent supervision count against Jamark Construction, LLC. The plaintiff also references Ramirez v. Dietrich, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV-14-6024621-S, 2017 Conn. Super. LEXIS 378 (March 3, 2017) [*16] for the proposition that factual allegations, according to the plaintiff, in support of allegations that employers failed to advise instruct and/or supervise their respective employees in connection with how and when to operate tractor trailer trucks during snow storms were sufficient to allege a cause of action for negligent supervision. The plaintiff contends that she has alleged sufficient facts, in her negligent supervision count including the factual allegation that Jamark failed to investigate Foley’s background or to train him in the operation of the dump truck and failed to supervise his use of the defective out-of-service vehicle.
The court agrees with the plaintiff that count four is legally sufficient in pleading a negligent supervision count against Jamark Construction because it alleges that Jamark Construction, LLC, had a duty to train and supervise Foley in the operation of a dump truck and that defendant knew or should have known that its failure to train and supervise Foley in his operation of the dump truck could cause an injury. The court also notes that under Morillo v. Georges, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV-15-0058761-S, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3191, [*17] Jamark Construction, LLC had constructive knowledge of Foley’s fitness but chose to ignore it when Jamark Construction failed to conduct a driving or adequate background checks on Foley. Accordingly, the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a negligent supervision count against Jamark Construction because the count alleges that Jamark’s failure to train and supervise Foley in the operation of a dump truck contributed to the motor vehicle accident and the plaintiff alleges facts that it could be foreseeable to Jamark that by failing to conduct a driving test or adequate background checks on Foley that Foley may not be fit to operate a dump truck, but Jamark Construction chose to ignore those factors.
“The claim of negligent retention has been recognized by Superior Court, but not by the appellate courts of the state . . . It requires a plaintiff to plead and prove that an employer, during the course of employment, became aware of problems that indicate a lack of fitness for the position and the unfitness was likely to cause the sort of harm incurred by the plaintiff[,] and that the employer failed to take action.” (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.) [*18] Loglisci v. Stamford Hospital, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV-08-5009309-S, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 387.
In Lara v. Legionaries of Christ, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket, Docket No. X03-HHD-CV-10-6016974-S, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2166 (August 30, 2011, Miller, J.), the court declined to strike a negligent retention claim against a parish which employed a priest who was accused of sexually assaulting minors because the plaintiff alleged facts in the complaint that other priests made allegations of other sexual abuse against the priest. Those allegations were sufficient to allege that the parish had knowledge of the priest’s alleged sexual abuse such that a negligent retention claim could survive a motion to strike. Id. See also Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-11-5035749-S (January 7, 2014, Peck, J.) [58 Conn. L. Rptr. 132, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1137] (finding the plaintiff alleged the necessary element of foreseeability to withstand a motion to strike a negligent retention claim on that ground where plaintiff alleged “that the defendant Diocese failed to take appropriate steps to investigate and remove Rozini as a priest when [it] learned of his propensity for sexually abusing [minors].” But see, Seda v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-07-5010811-S, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 916 (April 8, 2008, Elgo, J.) [*19] (granting motion to strike negligent retention claim because plaintiff did not allege employer “became aware of any problems with [employee] and failed to take steps to remedy the problems or terminate [her] employment”).
In the present case, the plaintiff responds that count six is legally sufficient in pleading a negligent retention claim against Jamark Construction, LLC. The plaintiff argues that her negligent retention claim is legally sufficient because she has alleged numerous deficiencies in Foley’s training and supervision, that he was operating the vehicle while he was unfit and unqualified to do so, that he failed to properly plan and study his routes and that he failed to comply with federal safety regulations and yet Jamark retained him as an employee.
The plaintiff, however, has not alleged in count six that at any time subsequent to Foley’s employment at Jamark Construction, LLC was it actually or constructively aware of problems with Foley that indicated his lack of fitness for his positions as their truck driver. See Clark v. Knochenhauer, Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Docket No. CV-14-6011914-S, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2816 (November 12, 2015, Aurigemma, J.) [*20] (striking negligent retention claim because “[t]here [was]no reference in the [c]omplaint to [the employee’s] driving during the six years he delivered the paper for the [employer] and therefore, no allegation that [employer] became aware of anything which made [employee] unfit for his position”). Accordingly, the plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to allege the foreseeability element required in a negligent retention claim and the court grants the motion as to count six of the amended complaint alleging negligent retention.
The next issue is whether count five, which includes the caption, negligent training, is legally sufficient cause of action to allege against Jamark Construction, LLC. Jamark Construction, LLC, contends that “negligent training” is not a recognized cause of action upon which relief may be granted and may be a component of a negligent supervision claim. In that case, because the plaintiff failed to state a claim for negligent supervision, count five alleging negligent training, is also legally insufficient. Alternatively, Jamark Construction, LLC argues that negligent training [*21] is already claimed in count one, alleging negligence, and is superfluous. The plaintiff does not address these arguments directly. Instead, the plaintiff references some unreported superior court decisions which declined to strike counts alleging negligent training.
This court agrees with Jamark Construction, LLC that allegations that it negligently trained Foley were alleged in count one, paragraph kk. Because a second allegation that Jamark Construction, LLC negligently trained Foley is duplicative of the negligence allegation in count one, paragraph kk, the court grants the motion to strike count five, captioned negligent training.
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Jamark Construction, LLC’s motion to strike counts two, three, and four of the amended complaint, but the court grants the motion to strike counts five and six of the amended complaint.
Previous Previous post: Ricardo Gaytan SOTO and Marisol Gaytan Soto, Plaintiffs, v. Anthony SHEALEY and Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, Defendants.
Next Next post: Griggs v. Swift Transp. Co.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
In Keodalah v. Allstate Insurance Company,1 a Washington appellate court held insurance adjusters may be liable for bad faith and violating Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.
Keodalah’s truck was struck in an intersection by an uninsured motorcyclist; the motorcyclist died. The Seattle Police Department (SPD) determined the motorcyclist was traveling between 70 and 74 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h., zone and Keodalah was not using his cell phone at the time of the collision.
Keodalah made a claim under his UIM coverage with Allstate. Allstate retained an accident reconstruction firm, Traffic Collision Analysis Inc. (TCA), who found Keodalah stopped at the stop sign and the motorcyclist’s “excessive speed” caused the collision. Keodalah’s demanded the UIM policy limit of $25,000. Allstate instead asserted Keodalah was 70% at fault and offered $5,000.
Keodalah sued Allstate. Allstate designated Tracey Smith, an Allstate insurance adjustor, as its 30(b)(6) representative. Although Allstate possessed the SPD report and TCA analysis, Smith claimed Keodalah ran the stop sign and was talking on his cell phone. Later, Smith acknowledged this was not true. The jury found the motorcyclist to be 100% at fault and awarded Keodalah $108,868.20.
Keodalah then sued Allstate and Smith for insurance bad faith and violations of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Smith moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and the trial court granted the motion.
whether an individual insurance adjuster may be liable for violation of the CPA.
The appellate court found under RCW 48.01.070, Smith had a duty to act in good faith, since she was engaged in the business of insurance as an Allstate representative. The court held that the duty to good faith applies not only to third-party companies adjusting insurance claims, but also to individual adjusters. The court declined to follow Garoutte,3 which held that the duty of good faith did not apply to individual adjusters. Instead, the court relied upon the analysis in Merriman4 and Lease,5 which found Washington’s insurance bad faith statutes permit claims against corporate insurance adjusters.
The Washington appellate court’s finding on the issue is contrary to most courts, which have “determined an insured cannot bring a negligence claim against an independent insurance adjuster because an independent insurance adjuster owes the insured no duty of care.”6 Washington found otherwise, and that RCW 48.01.030 imposes a duty of good faith on corporate and individual insurance adjusters.
Smith, relying on International,8 argued a contractual relationship must exist between the parties for liability under the CPA. The court, however, found Smith’s argument to be inconsistent with the Washington Supreme Court’s finding in Panag.9 In conclusion, individual insurance adjusters can be liable for a violation of the CPA.
1 Keodalah v. Allstate Ins. Co., 413 P.3d 1059 (Wash. App. 2018).
2 The Washington Supreme Court’s later ruling in Perez-Crisantos v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., foreclosed Keodalah’s IFCA claim.
3 Garoutte v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2013 WL 231104 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 22, 2013).
4 Merriman v. American Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 198 Wash. App. 594, 396 P.3d 351 (Wash. App. 2017).
5 Lease Crutcher Lewis WA, LLC v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., No. C08-1862, 2009 WL 3444762 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 20, 2009).
6 Tippett v. Ameriprise Ins. Co., No. 14-4710, 2015 WL 1345442 *4 (E.D. Pa. March 25, 2015) (predicting Pennsylvania law to follow “[t]he majority of state supreme courts to rule on the issue [which] have determined an insured cannot bring a negligence claim against an independent insurance adjuster because an independent insurance adjuster owes the insured no duty of care”).
7 Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc., v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wash.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (Wash. 1986).
8 International Ultimate, Inc., v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 122 Wash. App. 736, 87 P.3d 774 (Wash. App. 2004).
9 Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 166 Wash. 2d 27, 204 P.3d 885 (Wash. 2009).

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
William Newton VAN FOSSEN, Appellant.
& Hotze, Richmond, Va., on brief], for appellant.
evidence is insufficient and reverse his conviction.
arrested and subsequently convicted of counterfeiting.
on his motion and presented no evidence.
thumbprints showed Van Fossen had possession of the negatives and plate.
as alleged in the indictment.
L.Ed. 150 (1954); White v. United States, 279 F.2d 740, 748 (4th Cir.), cert.
United States v. Sherman, 421 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S.
reasonable doubt, then the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt. . .
were impressed only during the commission of the crime. United States v.
Mason v. Common-wealth, 357 S.W.2d 667 (Ky.1962).
impressed at the time the crime was committed. See State v. Smith, 274 N.C.
(12th ed. 1955, Supp.1971); Annot. 28 A.L.R.2d 1115, 1150 (1953).
conviction. Van Fossen is not charged with simple possession of these items.
money, or aided and abetted another person in the commission of the crime.
only have guessed at this conclusion.
show that Van Fossen knew the items he touched were contraband.
to connect Van Fossen with Brown's criminal activities.
United States v. Browning, 390 F.2d 511 (4th Cir. 1968), and United States v.
the light most favorable to the Government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
possession of an illegal distillery in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5601(a) (1).
related to custody of the still." 397 F.2d at 28.
evidence, standing alone, will support the inference of possession.
must have had possession of them."
"No doubt, flights of fancy, to infer innocent possession, could be indulged in. .
the defendant remains quiet at his peril." Holland v. United States, 348 U.S.
States, 162 U.S. 613, 16 S.Ct. 895, 40 L.Ed. 1090 (1896); United States v.
Ragland, 306 F.2d 732, 736 (4 Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 949, 83 S.Ct.
504, 9 L.Ed.2d 498 (1963); Moore v. United States, 271 F.2d 564, 568 (4 Cir.
crime was committed, the jury could only have guessed at this conclusion."
his conviction of that burglary; and in Borum v. United States, 127 U.S.
counterfeiting plate with the statutorily proscribed intent.
commands, induces or procures its commission is punishable as a principal. . .
presence of his thumb prints on the photographic negatives.
expert witness as to how to distinguish counterfeit bills from lawful currency.
to sell counterfeit money, and making plates for counterfeiting.
not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. Holland v.
Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Technologies v. Marvell Asia Pte. et. al.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
2013-06-25 Assigned to DEPUY SPINE, LLC reassignment DEPUY SPINE, LLC ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: DEPUY PRODUCTS, INC.
An instrumentation kit for use in preparing a shoulder to receive a glenoid component in one embodiment includes at least one combination device, the combination device including a boring section configured to form a first bore in a glenoid, a drive section operably connected to the boring section, a reaming section positioned proximally from the boring section and operably connected to the drive section, the reaming section configured to ream a portion of the glenoid, and at least one drill guide configured to guide a drill bit and positioned so as to guide the drill bit to form a second bore at a location spaced apart from the first bore, wherein the reaming section and the boring section are positioned with respect to each other such that the boring section forms the first bore and the reaming section simultaneously reams a portion of the glenoid adjacent to the first bore.
This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/051,011, entitled “Circular Glenoid Method for Shoulder Arthroscopy”, which was filed on Mar. 18, 2011, (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,764,836 issued on Jul. 1, 2014), U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/051,041, entitled “Device and Method for Retroversion Correction for Shoulder Arthroscopy”, which was also filed on Mar. 18, 2011 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,226,830 issued on Jan. 5, 2016), and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/051,062, entitled “Revision Glenoid Device and Method”, which was also filed on Mar. 18, 2011 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,551,177 issued on Oct. 8, 2013), the contents of which are each incorporated herein by reference.
The present invention relates generally to the field of orthopedics, and, more particularly, to glenoid component apparatuses for shoulder arthroplasty and methods for using them.
As depicted in FIG. 1, a typical shoulder or glenohumeral joint is formed in a human body where the humerus 10 movably contacts the scapula 12. The scapula 12 includes a glenoid fossa 14 that forms a socket against which the head of the humerus 10 articulates. At this socket, the scapula 12 includes cartilage 16 that facilitates such articulation. Beneath the cartilage is subchondral bone 18 that forms a wall of a glenoid vault 20 that defines a cavity which contains cancellous bone 22. The subchondral bone 18 that forms the glenoid vault 20 defines a glenoid rim 24 at a periphery of the glenoid vault 20 that is attached to the cartilage 16. During the lifetime of a patient, the glenoid fossa 14 may become worn, especially at its posterior and/or superior portions thereby causing severe shoulder pain and limiting the range of motion of the patient's shoulder joint. To alleviate such pain and increase the patient's range of motion, a shoulder arthroplasty may be performed. Arthroplasty is the surgical replacement of one or more bone structures of a joint with one or more prostheses.
Shoulder arthroplasty often involves replacement of the glenoid fossa of the scapula with a prosthetic glenoid component. The conventional glenoid component typically provides a generally laterally or outwardly facing generally concave bearing surface against which a prosthetic humeral head (or, alternatively, the spared natural humeral head in the case of a glenoid hemi-arthroplasty) may bear during operation of the joint. The conventional glenoid component typically also includes a generally medially or inwardly projecting stem for fixing the glenoid component in a cavity constructed by suitably resecting the glenoid fossa 14 and suitably resecting cancellous bone 22 from the glenoid vault 20.
The goal of shoulder arthroplasty is to restore normal kinematics to the shoulder. Accordingly, known systems attempt to replicate the normal kinematics by carefully controlling the geometry of the articulating surfaces in the joint as well as the positioning of the prostheses in the bones in which the prostheses are implanted. Thus, the articulating surface of a humeral component is typically spherical and positioning of the humeral component is accomplished by using the anatomical neck of the humerus as the reference plane for reconstruction of the humeral head.
Traditionally, shoulder joints have been understood to exhibit translation of the humeral component on the glenoid component in addition to rotation. Thus, the articulating surface of the glenoid is typically formed with a radius of curvature that is much larger than the radius of curvature of the humeral component. The increased radius of curvature of the glenoid articulating surface can be from 2-6 mm larger than the radius of curvature for the humeral component in these systems.
In known systems, the glenoid component is positioned in the geometric center of the glenoid fossa. The geometric center is established by generating a line from the most superior point of the glenoid rim to the most inferior point of the glenoid rim (“Saller's line”). A second line is generated between the most posterior point of the glenoid rim and the most anterior point of the glenoid rim. The intersection of the two generated lines is considered to be the geometric center of the area circumscribed by the glenoid rim. By way of example, FIG. 2 depicts a sagittal view of the scapula 12. In FIG. 2, Saller's line 30 extends between the most superior point 32 of the glenoid rim 24 to the most inferior point 34 of the glenoid rim 24. A second line 36 extends from the most posterior point 38 of the glenoid rim 24 and the most anterior point 40 of the glenoid rim. The geometric center 42 of the glenoid fossa 14 is located at the intersection of the line 36 and Saller's line 30. As used herein, the terms anterior, posterior, superior, and inferior, unless otherwise specifically described, are used with respect to the orientation of the scapula 12 as depicted in FIG. 2.
Once a surgeon determines the placement of the glenoid component, a guide pin is positioned through the glenoid fossa. A reamer is then used to shape the scapula to receive a glenoid component, typically by forming a cavity in the glenoid vault. For glenoid components including a center peg for fixation of the glenoid component within the glenoid vault, a bore is drilled using the guide pin as a guide. The guide pin is then removed. For glenoid components including offset pegs in addition to the center peg for fixation of the glenoid component within the glenoid vault, a drill guide is introduced into the prepared cavity and additional bores are drilled for each of the offset pegs. A trial glenoid component is then implanted in the prepared cavity and, if the fit appears to be satisfactory, the trial is removed and a glenoid component is implanted in the prepared cavity.
There exists a need for a simplified method of implanting a glenoid component. There is a further need for reducing the instrumentation required to properly prepare the scapula to receive a glenoid component.
The present invention in one embodiment provides an instrumentation kit for use in preparing a shoulder to receive a glenoid component which includes at least one combination device, the combination device including a boring section configured to rotationally form a first bore in a glenoid of a shoulder, a drive section operably connected to the boring section and configured to receive a rotational force, a reaming section positioned proximally from the boring section and operably connected to the drive section, the reaming section configured to rotationally ream a portion of the glenoid, and at least one drill guide configured to guide a drill bit and positioned so as to guide the drill bit to form a second bore in the shoulder at a location spaced apart from the first bore, wherein the reaming section and the boring section are positioned with respect to each other such that when the combination device is positioned against the glenoid and the rotational force is applied to the drive section, the boring section rotationally forms the first bore in the glenoid and the reaming section simultaneously rotationally reams a portion of the glenoid adjacent to the first bore.
In another embodiment, a method of preparing a shoulder to receive a glenoid component includes accessing a glenoid of a shoulder, applying a rotational force to a combination device, forming a first bore in the glenoid with a rotating boring section of the combination device, forming a second bore in the glenoid at a location spaced apart from the first bore using a first drill guide defined by the combination device, and reaming a portion of the glenoid with a rotating reaming section of the combination device, wherein forming a first bore and reaming a portion of the glenoid occur simultaneously.
The above-noted features and advantages of the present invention, as well as additional features and advantages, will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art upon reference to the following detailed description and the accompanying drawings, which include a disclosure of the best mode of making and using the invention presently contemplated.
FIG. 1 depicts a coronal view of an anatomically normal shoulder joint.
FIG. 26 depicts a perspective view of the scapula of FIG. 25 with the combination device of FIG. 6 used to guide a drill bit to form a bore to receive an offset peg of the glenoid component of FIG. 3 while the manual extension of FIG. 14 has been used to manually stabilize the combination device on the scapula.
Like reference numerals refer to like parts throughout the following description and the accompanying drawings.
FIGS. 3-5 depict a glenoid component 100. The glenoid component 100 includes a body portion 102 including a spherical articulating surface 104 and an opposite bone contacting surface 106. An outer wall 108 extends away from the bone contacting surface 106 and defines an outer periphery of the body portion 102. The bone contacting surface 106 is generally convex. A finned center peg 110 extends away from the nadir of the bone contacting surface 106 as viewed in FIG. 5. Three offset pegs 112, 114, and 116 extend away from the bone contacting surface 106 at locations between the center peg 110 and the outer wall 108. The nadir 118 of the spherical articulating surface 104 is located on the centerline 120 of the glenoid component 100.
The glenoid component 100 in this embodiment is an integrally formed unit made from a durable biocompatible plastic or any other suitable durable biocompatible material. For example, the glenoid component 100 may be made from a polyethylene. One particular polyethylene that is well suited for glenoid component 100 is a high molecular weight polyethylene, for example ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (“UHMWPE”). One such UHMWPE is sold as by Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, N.J. as MARATHON™ UHMWPE and is more fully described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,228,900 and 6,281,264 to McKellop, which are incorporated herein by reference.
In embodiments wherein the articulating surface 104 and the other portions of the glenoid component 100 are made from different materials, the portions of the glenoid component 100 other than the articulating surface 104 may be made from a suitable biocompatible metal such as, for example, a cobalt chromium alloy, a stainless steel alloy, a titanium alloy, or any other suitable durable material. In these embodiments, the articulating surface 104 is secured to the body portion 102 in any suitable manner. For example, articulating surface 104 may be bonded to body portion 102, or articulating surface 104 could be made from polyethylene and compression molded to body portion 102. Alternately, the articulating surface 104 may be glued to the body portion 102 by, for example, an adhesive. Alternatively, articulating surface 104 may be mechanically interlocked to the body portion 102 by taper locking or otherwise press-fitting the articulating surface 104 into the body 102 and the body 102 may include any other suitable interlocking features, for example, rib(s), lip(s), detent(s), and/or other protrusion(s) and mating groove(s), channel(s), or indent(s) (not shown).
In alternative embodiments, one or more of the outer wall 108, the bone contacting surface 106, the center peg 110 and the offset pegs 112, 114, and 116 may include a porous coating to facilitate bone in-growth into the glenoid component 100. The porous coating may be any suitable porous coating and may for example be POROCOAT®, a product of Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, N.J. and more fully described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,855,638 to Pilliar, which is incorporated herein by reference.
In order to implant the glenoid component 100 into a scapula, the scapula must first be prepared to receive the glenoid component 100. A device which can be used to prepare the scapula to receive the glenoid component 100 is depicted in FIGS. 6-9. With reference to FIGS. 6-9, a combination device 130 includes a drive section 132, a body section 134, and a drill or boring section 136. The drive section 132 in this embodiment is a hexagonally shaped bore defined in the body section 134.
A number of reaming fins 140 extend from the lower central portion of the body section 134 toward the drill section 136. The reaming fins 140 curve proximally and outwardly from the lower central portion of the body section 134 to the outer periphery of the body section 134. The reaming fins 140 include an arcuate leading edge 142. The body section 134 defines a number of through-holes at locations between adjacent reaming fins 140. The through-holes in the embodiment of FIGS. 6-9 include three drill guides 146 and three ports 148.
The drill section 136 extends away from the body section 134 to a distal tip 150. Two flutes 152 and 154 extend helically about the drill section 136 between the body section 134 and the distal tip 150. A guide bore 156 extends from the distal tip 150 to the drive section 132.
As discussed in further detail below, a kit may include one or more combination devices 130 along with various instrumentation to facilitate use of the combination device 130. By way of example, FIG. 10 depicts a power extension 160 that may be included in the kit. The power extension 160 includes a power receiving portion 162 and a power transfer portion 164. The power receiving portion 162 is sized and configured to couple with a power tool and includes a pair of opposing power receiving flats 166 and a pair of coupling grooves 168 and 170 which extend about the power receiving portion 162 between the power receiving flats 166.
The power transfer portion 164 is shaped to be complimentary to the drive section 132. In the embodiment of FIGS. 10 and 11, the power transfer portion 164 is thus a hexagonally shaped protrusion sized to fit within the drive section 132. A guide bore 172 extends from the distal tip of the power transfer portion 164 to the proximal end of the power receiving portion 162.
To couple the combination device 130 with the power extension 160, the power transfer portion 164 is aligned with the drive section 132 as shown in FIG. 12. The combination device 130 with the power extension 160 are then moved toward each other such that the power transfer portion 164 enters into the drive section 132 resulting in the configuration of FIG. 13. In FIG. 13, the guide bore 156 of the combination device 130 is aligned with the guide bore 172 of the power extension 160.
FIGS. 14-16 depict a manual extension 180 that may also be included in the kit. The manual extension 180 includes a handle portion 182 and a power transfer portion 184. The handle portion 182 is sized and configured to be easily gripped and defines a first axis 186.
The power transfer portion 184 includes a hexagonal protuberance 188 shaped to be complimentary to the drive section 132. The power transfer portion 184 defines a second axis 190. The second axis 190 forms an angle 192 of about 145 degrees with the first axis 186. A guide bore 194 extends from the distal tip of the power transfer portion 184 along the second axis 190.
To couple the combination device 130 with the manual extension 180, the power transfer portion 184 is aligned with the drive section 132 as shown in FIG. 17. The combination device 130 and the manual extension 180 are then moved toward each other such that the hexagonal protuberance 188 enters into the drive section 132 resulting in the configuration of FIG. 18.
In FIG. 18, the guide bore 156 of the combination device 130 is aligned with the guide bore 194 of the manual extension 180. Beneficially, the angle 192 (see FIG. 14) between the handle portion 182 and the power transfer portion 184 allows a user to easily see the guide bore 194, thereby assisting in alignment of the power transfer portion 184 with the drive section 132 or, as discussed in more detail below, with a guide wire extending through the guide bore 156. The angle 192 further provides a mechanical advantage in maintaining the combination device 130 in a desired location as also discussed below.
A kit including the combination device 130, the power extension 160, and the manual extension 180 may be used in preparing a shoulder to receive a glenoid component such as glenoid component 100 in accordance with a procedure 200 depicted in FIG. 19. Initially, a scapula is accessed at block 202 in accordance with a desired surgical approach. At block 204, a guide wire, which may be provided in a kit along with other instrumentation used in the procedure 200, is positioned on the scapula. Positioning of the guide wire may be computer aided. In one embodiment, the guide wire is positioned based upon identification of the center of an inferior glenoid circle. By way of example, FIG. 20 depicts a guide wire 206 implanted into a glenoid 14 of the scapula 12. In the embodiment of FIG. 20, the guide wire 206 has been positioned with the aid of a guide plate 208 and a guide plate manipulator 210.
Once the guide wire is positioned, a combination device 130 is positioned with the guide bore 156 aligned with the guide wire. The combination device 130 is then moved toward the guide wire and at block 212 the guide wire is used to guide the combination device 130 to a location adjacent to the glenoid 14 of the scapula 12 as depicted in FIG. 21.
At block 214, a power extension 160 is coupled to the combination device 130 substantially in the manner described above. Since the guide wire 206 extends through the guide bore 156 of the combination device 130, however, coupling of the power extension 160 to the combination device 130 begins by aligning the guide bore 172 of the power extension 160 with the guide wire 206. The guide wire 206 thus guides the power extension 160 to the combination device 130. Some rotation of the power extension 160 may be required to align the power transfer portion 164 with the drive section 132 of the combination device 130 to allow coupling of the power extension 160 with the combination device 130. The resulting configuration is depicted in FIG. 22.
A rotary tool (not shown) is then coupled to the combination device 130 at block 216. In some embodiments, a rotary tool may be directly coupled to the combination device 130. In this example, the power extension 160 is coupled to the combination device 130 as described above. Thus, the rotary tool is coupled to the power receiving portion 162 of the power extension 160 so as to be indirectly coupled to the combination device 130.
Power is then applied to the rotary tool causing the rotary tool to rotate the power extension 160. Rotary force is transferred to the drive section 132 of the combination device 130 through the power transfer portion 164 (see FIG. 12). As the combination device 130 initially rotates about the guide wire 206, the drill section 136 contacts the glenoid 14 and begins to bore a hole in the glenoid 14. The reaming fins 140, however, are initially spaced apart from the glenoid 14 as depicted in FIG. 22. Accordingly, no reaming occurs. As a hole is formed in the glenoid 14 by the drill section 136, the combination device 130 is guided by the guide wire such that the reaming fins 140 come into contact with the glenoid 14 as depicted in FIG. 23. Continued rotation of the combination device 130 with the rotary tool thus causes simultaneous reaming of the glenoid 14 with the reaming fins 140 and boring of the scapula 12 with the drill section 136 at block 218.
Once the glenoid 14 has been reamed to the desired depth, the power tool is de-energized and disconnected at block 220. The size of the drill section 132, both in length and diameter, is selected to be complimentary to the size of the center peg 110 of the glenoid component 100. Thus, upon completion of the reaming, the bore formed by the drill section is sized to receive the finned center peg 110. The power extension 160 is disconnected at block 222, resulting in the configuration of FIG. 24.
At block 224, the manual extension 180 is coupled to the combination device 130 substantially in the manner described above. Since the guide wire 206 extends through the guide bore 156 of the combination device 130, however, coupling of the manual extension 180 to the combination device 130 begins by aligning the guide bore 190 of the manual extension 180 with the guide wire 206. The guide wire 206 thus guides the manual extension 180 to the combination device 130. Some rotation of the manual extension 180 may be required to align the hexagonal protuberance 188 of the manual extension 180 with the drive section 132 of the combination device 130 to allow coupling of the manual extension 180 with the combination device 130. The resulting configuration is depicted in FIG. 25.
Once the manual extension 180 has been coupled with the combination device 130, the manual extension 180 may be used to align the combination device 130 at block 226 as explained with reference to FIG. 25. Specifically, the handle portion 182 may be rotated about the axis 228 defined by the guide wire 206. Rotation of the handle portion 182 about the axis 228 causes rotation of the combination device 130 about the axis 228.
The curvature of the manual extension 180 resulting from the angle 192 (see FIG. 14) provides a surgeon with a relatively unobstructed view of the combination device 130. Accordingly, the surgeon may view the reamed surface of the glenoid 14 through the drill guides 146. This allows a surgeon to view the location in the shoulder 12 at which the offset fixation pegs 112, 114, and 116 of the glenoid component 100 will be anchored. In the embodiments in this example wherein the number and positioning of the drill guides 146 are complimentary to the number and positioning of the offset fixation pegs 112, 114, and 116, the surgeon may orient the combination device 130 such that each of the drill guides 146 is aligned with portions of the shoulder that can provide a good anchor for the offset fixation pegs 112, 114, and 116.
Once the combination device 130 is aligned at the block 226, a drill bit is inserted through one of the drill guides 146 to drill an additional bore at a location spaced apart from the first bore formed using the drill section 136 at block 230. By way of example, FIG. 26 depicts a drill bit 232 positioned in a drill guide 146 of the combination device 130. The manual extension 180 may be used to steady the combination device 130 during the drilling process. The offset of the handle portion 182 from the axis 228 provided by the angle 192 results in a mechanical advantage in maintaining the combination device 130 at the desired orientation. Blocks 226 and 30 may be repeated as desired to form additional holes.
Once all of the desired holes are formed, the combination device 130 is removed at block 234. The manual extension 180 may be used to aid in removal of the combination device 130. At block 236, the glenoid component is implanted. In this example, the glenoid component 100 has a lower bone contacting surface 106 shaped complimentary to the reaming cross-section of the reaming fins 140. Thus, in this example the lower bone contacting surface 106 is curved complimentary to the distal curve of the reaming fins 140. In other embodiments, the reaming fins 140 may be configured to produce a flat bottomed area if a glenoid component with a flat lower bone contacting surface is used. Accordingly, a kit may include different combination devices with differently shaped reaming cross-sections.
The combination device 130 and the procedure 200 may be used in combination with various of the devices and procedures disclosed in the related applications identified above. Thus, while the combination device 130 is useful in implanting a circular glenoid device at the center of the inferior glenoid circle, the combination device 130 may be used to implant other glenoid components, including non-circular glenoid components, at any desired location in a glenoid. Preferably, the diameter of the reaming cross-section of the combination device 130 is selected to match the largest diameter of a glenoid component. Thus, while a kit may include one or more combination devices 130 of the same reaming diameter, a kit may alternatively include a number of combination devices with differently sized reaming diameters.
The foregoing description of the invention is illustrative only, and is not intended to limit the scope of the invention to the precise terms set forth. Further, although the invention has been described in detail with reference to certain illustrative embodiments, variations and modifications exist within the scope and spirit of the invention as described and defined in the following claims.
wherein the reaming section and the boring section are positioned with respect to each other such that when the combination device is positioned against the glenoid and the rotational force is applied to the drive section, the boring section rotationally forms the first bore in the glenoid and the reaming section simultaneously rotationally reams a portion of the glenoid adjacent to the first bore.
the boring section extends distally from the body portion.
a plurality of reaming fins extending distally from the body section, each of the plurality of reaming fins defining an arcuate leading edge.
the at least one drill guide comprises a plurality of circular drill guides, each of the plurality of circular drill guides positioned such that when a drill bit is extended through any one of the plurality of circular drill guides, the drill bit extends between a respective two of the plurality of reaming fins along an axis substantially parallel to an axis defined by the boring section.
5. The kit of claim 4, further comprising a plurality of ports extending from a distal surface of the body portion to a proximal surface of the body portion.
6. The kit of claim 1, the combination device further comprising a guide bore extending from a distal tip of the boring section to the drive portion.
a power extension, the power extension including a first coupling portion configured to couple with the drive section to transfer rotational force to the drive section, and a second coupling portion configured to couple with a rotating power tool.
a manual extension, the manual extension including a first end portion with a coupling portion configured to couple with the drive section to transfer rotational force to the drive section, and a handle located at a second end portion.
9. The kit of claim 8, wherein the first end portion of the manual extension defines a first axis and the second end portion of the manual extension defines a second axis, the first axis and the second axis forming an angle other than 180 degrees.
the manual extension further comprises a manual guide bore configured to align with the combination device guide bore when the manual extension is coupled to the combination device.
11. The kit of claim 8, wherein the at least one combination device comprises a plurality of combination devices, each of the plurality of combination devices defining a reaming diameter different from the reaming diameter of the other of the plurality of combination devices.
the reaming section comprises a plurality of reaming fins.
wherein the boring section defines a boring section axis and the at least one drill guide defines a drill guide axis, the drill guide axis parallel to the boring section axis.
the drill guide axis of each of the first drill guide, the second drill guide, and the third drill guide is parallel to the drill guide axes of each of the other of the first drill guide, the second drill guide, and the third drill guide.
Antuna et al., "Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty," Journal of Shoulder Elbow Surgery, 2001, pp. 217-224, vol. 10, Rochester, MN (8 pages).
Australian Examination Report corresponding to application No. 2012231298, dated Sep. 17, 2015, (4 pages).
Bey, Michael J., et al., "Measuring Dynamic In-Vivo Glenohumeral Joint Kinematics: Technique and Preliminary Results," Journal of Biomechanics 41 (2008), pp. 711-714. (4 pages).
Boileau P, Walch G., "The three dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for the surgical technique and prosthetic design." J. Bone Joint Surg Br 1997;79-B:857-65. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.79B5.7579 (9 pages).
Boyer PJ, Massimini DF, Gill TJ, Papannagari R, Stewart SL, Warner JP, Li G., "In vivo articular cartilage contact at the glenohumeral joint: preliminary report." J. Orthop Sci. 2008;13:359-65.doi:10.1007/s00776-008-1237-3 (7 pages).
Bryce CD, Davison AC, Lewis GS, Wang , Flemming DJ, Armstrong AD., "Two dimensional glenoid version measurements vary with coronal and sagittal scapular rotation." J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92-692-9.doi.10.2106/JBJS.I.00177 (8 pages).
Chant, Chris B., et al., "Humeral Head Retroversion in Competitive Baseball Players and Its Relationship to Glenohumeral Rotation Range of Motion," Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, Sep. 2007, vol. 37, No. 9, pp. 514-520. (7 pages).
Chinese Search Report corresponding to application No. 201280023890.7, dated Jun. 5, 2015, (2 pages).
Chinese Search Report corresponding to application No. 201280023936.5, dated Aug. 25, 2015, (2 pages).
Chinese Supplementary Search Report corresponding to application No. 201280023936.5, dated Apr. 25, 2016, (2 pages).
Codsi et al., "Normal glenoid vault anatomy and validation of a novel glenoid implant shape," Journal of Shoulder Elbow Surgery, May/Jun. 2008, pp. 471-478, vol. 17, Austria (8 pages).
Conzen, Annemarie and Eckstein, Felix, MD, "Quantitative Determination of Articular Pressure in the Human Shoulder Joint," Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, vol. 9, No. 3, May/Jun. 2000, pp. 196-204. (9 pages).
Couteau B, Mansat , Darmana R, Mansat M., Egan J., "Morphological and mechanical analysis of the glenoid by 3D geometric reconstruction using computed tomography." Clin Biomech 2000;15(suppl1):8-12.doi:10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00052-8 (5 pages).
Couteau B, Mansat P, Mansat M, Darmana R, Egan J., "In vivo characterization of glenoid with use of computed tomography." J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001;116-22 (7 pages).
Couteau B, Mansat P. Estivales E, Darmana R. Mansat M., Egan J., "Finite element analysis of the mechanical behavior of a scapula implanted with a glenoid prosthesis." Clin Biomech 2001;16:566-75.doi:10.1016/S0268-0033(01)00029-8 (10 pages).
De Wilde LF, Verstraeten T, Speeckaert W, Karelse A., "Reliability of the glenoid plane." J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19:414-22. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.10.005. (9 pages).
De Wilde, L.F., et al., "About the Variability of the Shape of the Glenoid Cavity," Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy (2004) 26; pp. 54-59. (6 pages).
De Wilde, Lieven F. MD, et al., "Glenohumeral Relationship in the Transverse Plane of the Body," Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, vol. 12, No. 3, May/Jun. 2003, pp. 260-267. (8 pages).
Erichsen, "Injuries of the Nervous System on Railway and Other Injuries of the Nervous System", The Classic Article in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Mar. 1997, pp. 47-51, No. 458, Walton and Moberly, London (5 pages).
Extended European Search Report corresponding to European Patent Application No. 12760199.5, dated Aug. 7, 2014 (6 pages).
Extended European Search Report corresponding to European Patent Application No. 16167719.0-1654, dated Sep. 6, 2016 (6 pages).
Fleiss, Joseph L., "Analysis of Data From Multiclinic Trials," Controlled Clinical Trials 7: 267-275 (1986). (9 pages).
Graichen H, Hinterwimmer S, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Vogl T. Englmeier KH, Eckstein F., "Effect of abducting and adducting muscle acitivity on glenohumeral translation, scapular kinematics and subacromial space width in vivo." Journal of Biomechanics 2005;38:755-60. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.05.020. (6 pages).
Graichen H, Stammberger T. Bonel H, Karl-Hans E, Reiser M, Eckstein F., "Glenohumeral translation during active and passive elevation of the shoulder-a 3D open-MRI study." Journal of Biomechanics 2000;33:609-13.doi:10.1016/S0021-9290(99)00209-2. (5 pages).
Graichen H, Stammberger T. Bonel H, Karl-Hans E, Reiser M, Eckstein F., "Glenohumeral translation during active and passive elevation of the shoulder—a 3D open-MRI study." Journal of Biomechanics 2000;33:609-13.doi:10.1016/S0021-9290(99)00209-2. (5 pages).
Harryman DT, Sidles JA, Harris SL, Lippitt SB, Matsen FA., "The effect of articular conformity and the size of the humeral head component on laxity and motion after glenohumeral arthroplasty." J. Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77-A:555-63.No doi found. (10 pages).
Hertel, Ralph M.D., "Geometry of the Proximal Humerus and Implications for Prosthetic Design," Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Jul./Aug. 2002, vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 331-338. (8 pages).
Huysmans PE, Haen PS, Kidd M, Dhert WJ, Willems JW., "The shape of the inferior part of the glenoid: a cadaveric study." J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 15(6):759-63. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.09.001 (5 pages).
Iannotti JP, Gabriel JP, Schneck SL, Evans BG, Misra S., "The normal glenohumeral relationships. An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders." J. Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(4); 491-500. No doi found. (11 pages).
Japanese Office Action corresponding to application No. 2013-558132, dated Jan. 12, 2016 (5 pages).
Japanese Office Action corresponding to application No. 2014-501145, dated Jan. 19, 2016 (4 pages).
Jeske, H.C. et al., "Normal glenoid rim anatomy and the reliability of shoulder instability measurements based on intrasite correlation," Surg. Radiol. Anat., vol. 31, pp. 623-625, Mar. 2009 (3 pages).
Karduna AR, Williams GR, Williams JL, Ianotti JP., "Glenohumeral Joint translations before and after total shoulder arthroplasty." J Bone Joint Surg 1997;79-A,1166-74. No doi found. (10 pages).
Karelse et al., "The Pillars of the Scapula", Clinical Anatomy, 2007, pp. 392-399, vol. 20, Belgium (8 pages).
Lee SB, Kim KJ, O'Driscoll SW, Morrey BF, An KN., "Dynamic glenohumeral stability provided by the rotator cuff muscles in the mid-range and end-range of motion." A study in cadavera. J. Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(6):849-57. No doi found (10 pages).
Lewis GS, Bryce CD, Davison AC, Hollenbeak CS, Piazza SJ, Armstrong AD., "Location of the optimized centerline of the glenoid vault: a comparison of two operative techniques with use of three-dimensional computer modeling." J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2010;92:1188-94. doi:10-2106/JBJS.I.00131. (8 pages).
Mahfouz M, Nicholson G, Komistek R, Hovis D, Kubo M., "In vivo determination of the dynamics of normal, rotator cuff-deficient, total, and reverse replacement shoulders." J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87 Suppl 2:107-13. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00483 (8 pages).
Mansat, M. and Fourcade, D., "Preoperative Planning in Shoulder Prosthesis," Acta Orthopaedica Belgica (1995) vol. 61-Suppl. 1-1995. (6 pages).
Mansat, M. and Fourcade, D., "Preoperative Planning in Shoulder Prosthesis," Acta Orthopaedica Belgica (1995) vol. 61—Suppl. 1—1995. (6 pages).
Massimini DF, Li G, Warner JP., "Glenohumeral contact kinematics in patients after total shoulder arthroplasty." J Bone Joint Surg Am. Apr. 2010;92(4):916-26. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01610. (12 pages).
Matsen FA., "Early effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty for patients who have primary glenohumeral degenerative joint disease." J Bone and Joint Surg 1996;78-A:260-4. No doi found. (6 pages).
Matsen III, Fredereick A., et al., "Shoulder Arthroplasty: The Socket Perspective," Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Oct. 2007; 1: 24S-247S (7 pages).
Middernacht, Bart, MD, et al., "Consequences of Scapular Anatomy for Reversed Total Shoulder Arthroplasty," Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (2008) 466: 1410-1418. (9 pages).
Moon, P. and Spencer, D.E., Rectangular Coordinates (x,y,z). Field Theory Handbook, Including Coordinate Systems, Differential Equations, and Their Solutions (1988), New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 9-11 (Table 1.01). (3 pages).
Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Atkinson TS, Jacob HA, Favre P, Gerber C., "Effects of glenoid component version on humeral head displacement and joint reaction forces: an experimental study." J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:625-9. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.09.016. (5 pages).
Nyffeler RW, Werner CM, Sukthankar A, Schmid MR, Gerber C., "Association of a large lateral extension of the acromion with rotator cuff tears." J. Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88-800-5. No doi found (7 pages).
Pappas GP, Blemker SS, Beaulieu CF, McAdams TR, Whalen ST, Gold GE., "In vivo anatomy of the Neer and Hawkins sign positions for shoulder impingement." J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006;15:40-9. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.04.007. (10 pages).
Pearl ML, Krurtz S., "Geometric analysis of commonly used prosthetic systems for proximal humeral replacement." J Bone Joint Surg 1999;81-A:660-71. No doi found (13 pages).
Pearl, Michael L., M.D. and Volk, Albert G., M.D., "Coronal Plane Geometry of the Proximal Humerus Relevant to Prosthetic Arthroplasty," Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, vol. 5, No. 4, Jul./Aug. 1996, pp. 320-326. (7 pages).
Piasecki et al., Review Article: "Glenoid Bone Deficiency in Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: Diagnosis and Management," JAm Acad. Ortho. Surg. 2009, vol. 17, pp. 482-493.
Randelli, M., M.D. and Gambrioli, P.L., M.D., "Glenohumeral Osteometry by Computed Tomography in Normal and Unstable Shoulders," Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 208, Jul. 1986, pp. 151-156. (6 pages).
Robertson, Douglas D., M.D., et al., "Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Proximal Part of the Humerus: Relevance to Arthroplasty," The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, vol. 82-A,No. 11, Nov. 2000, pp. 1594-1602. (9 pages).
Rougraff, Bruce T., M.D., et al., "Does Length of Symptoms Before Diagnosis of Sarcoma Affect Patient Survival?" Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (2007), No. 462, pp. 181-189. (9 pages).
Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Bryan J, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP., "The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography images of the shoulder in preoperative planning for total shoulder arthroplasty." J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2438-45.doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.01341. (9 pages).
Schiffern SC, Rozencwaig R, Antoniou J, Richardson ML, Matsen FA III., "Anteroposterior centering of the humeral head on the glenoid in vivo." Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(3):382-7. No doi found. (7 pages).
Shrout, Patrick E. and Fleiss, Jospeh L., "Intraclass Correlations: Uses in Assessing Rater Reliability," Psychological Bulletin, 1979, vol. 86, No. 2, pp. 420-428. (9 pages).
Soslowsky LJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU, Pawluk RJ, Ateshian GA, Mow VC., "Quantitation of in situ contact areas at the joint: a biomechanical study." J Orthop Res. 1992;10:524-34. doi:10.1002/jor.1100100407. (11 pages).
Soslowsky, Louis J., Ph.D. et al, "Articular Geometry of the Glenohumeral Joint," Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 285, Dec. 1992, pp. 181-190. (10 pages).
Takase K, Yamamoto K, Imakiire A, Burkhead WZ Jr., "The radiographic study in the relationship of the glenohumeral joint." J Orthop Res. 2004;22:298-305. doi:10.1016/S0736-0266(03)00187-6 (8 pages).
Tetreault, Patrice, et al., "Glenoid Version and Rotator Cuff Tears," Journal of Orthopaedic Research 22 (2004) pp. 202-207. (6 pages).
Tokgoz N, Kanatli U, Voyvoda NK, Gultekin S, Bolukbasi S, Tali ET., "The relationship of glenoid and humeral version with supraspinatus tendon tears." Skeletal Radion. 2007;36:509-14. No doi found. (6 pages).
Warner, Jon J.P., M.D. et al, "Articular Contact Patterns of the Normal Glenohumeral Joint," Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Jul./Aug. 1998, vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 381-388. ( 8 pages).
Werner CML, Weishaupt D, Blumenthal S, Curt A, Favre P, Gerber C., "Effect of experimental suprascapular nerve block on active glenohumeral translations in vivo." J Orthop Res 2006;24:491-500. doi:10.1002/jor.20011. (10 pages).
Westerhoff, P., et al., "In Vivo Measurement of Shoulder Joint Loads During Activities of Daily Living," Journal of Biomechanics 42 (2009), pp. 1840-1849. (10 pages).
Williams, Gerald R., Jr., M.D., and Iannotti, Joseph P., M.D. PhD., "Options for Glenoid Bone Loss: Composites of Prosthetics and Biologics," Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Sep./Oct. 2007, vol. 16, No. 5S, pp. 267S-272S. (6 pages).
Wirth, Michael A. and Rockwood, Charles A., Jr., "Current Concepts Review-Complications of Total Shoulder-Replacement Arthroplasty," Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Apr. 1996, vol. 78-A, No. 4, pp. 603-616. (15 pages).
Wirth, Michael A. and Rockwood, Charles A., Jr., "Current Concepts Review—Complications of Total Shoulder-Replacement Arthroplasty," Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Apr. 1996, vol. 78-A, No. 4, pp. 603-616. (15 pages).
Wirth, Michael A., M.D. and Rockwood, Charles A., Jr., M.D., "Complications of Shoulder Arthroplasty," Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Oct. 1994, No. 307, pp. 47-69. ( 23 pages).

matches:
application No. 2012231298
application No. 201280023890
application No. 201280023936
application No. 201280023936
Application No. 12760199
Application No. 16167719
application No. 2013
application No. 2014


text:
Welcome back to another edition of “Uncommon Words” featuring exciting words I find in fiction.
These articles feature words that I don’t use very often (if ever) along with their definitions and how they are used in the book. I will try to avoid any book spoilers by replacing them with dashes. I am doing this in the hope that I will start using more of these words in my writing. Let’s build our vocabulary together!
You can find other articles in this series here.
This article will feature a few words I found in “The Name of the Wind” which is book one in “The Kingkiller Chronicles” by Patrick Rothfuss.
verdigris. n. a bright bluish-green encrustation or patina formed on copper or brass by atmospheric oxidation, consisting of basic copper carbonate.
spurious. adj. not being what it purports to be; false or fake.
inveterate. adj. having a particular habit, activity, or interest that is long-established and unlikely to change.
rote. n. mechanical or habitual repetition of something to be learned.
remand. v. place (a defendant) on bail or in custody, esp. when a trail is adjourned.
mollify. v. appease the anger or anxiety of (someone).
simulacrum. n. an image or representation of someone or something. <SPECIAL USAGE> an unsatisfactory imitation or substitute.
auspicious. adj. conductive to success; favorable.
sophist. n. a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning. <SPECIAL USAGE> a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.
altruism. n. the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
Welcome back to another article of “Uncommon Words” featuring exciting words I find in fiction. These articles feature words that I don’t use very often (if ever) along with their definitions and how they are used in the book. I will try to avoid any book spoilers by replacing them with dashes. I am doing this in the hope that I will start using more of these words in my writing. Let’s build our vocabulary together!
This article will feature a few words I found in “The Last Colony” which is book 3 in “The Old Man’s War Trilogy” by John Scalzi. Not as many as I found in the last book, but some good ones in here.
rictus. n. fixed grimace or grin.
provisional. adj. arranged or existing for the present, possibly to be changed later.
ostensibly. adv. apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.
perambulate. v. walk or travel through or around (a place or area), esp. for pleasure and in a leisurely way.
Usage in book: “Out of the corner of my eye I saw Beata Novik, his camerawoman, do her slow perambulation.
wry. adj. using or expressing dry, esp. mocking, humor.
ostentatious. adj. characterized by vulgar or pretentious display; designed to impress or attract notice.
ombudsman. n. an official appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against maladministration, esp. that of public authorities.
apparatchik. n. Derogatory or Humorous. An official in a large organization, typically a political one.
This article is the first of a new series of articles featuring interesting and uncommon words I find in fiction.
These articles will specifically feature words that I don’t use very often (if ever) along with their definitions and how they are used in the book. I will try to avoid any spoilers by replacing them with dashes. I am doing this in the hope that I will start using more of these words in my writing. Let’s build our vocabulary together!
This article will feature a few words I found in “The Ghost Brigades” which is book 2 in “The Old Man’s War Trilogy” by John Scalzi.
You can also check out Uncommon Words Part 2.
mirthless. adj. (of a smile or laugh) lacking real amusement and typically expressing irony.
progenitor. n. a person or thing from which a person, animal, or plant is descended or originates; an ancestor or parent.
Usage in book: “If she came across —-, she would need to make a quick determination whether he was useful or if he had gone traitor like his progenitor.
attenuated. adj. unnaturally thin. <SPECIAL USAGE> weakened in force or effect.
gambol. v. run or jump about playfully.
trill. n. a quavering or vibratory sound, esp. a rapid alternation of sung or played notes. <SPECIAL USAGE> the pronunciation of a consonant esp. r, with rapid vibration of the tongue against the hard or soft palate or the uvula. or v. produce a quavering or warbling sound.
eschatology. n. the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind.
ineffable. adj. too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words. <SPECIAL USAGE> not to be uttered.
putative. adj. generally considered or reputed to be.
acquisitive. adj. excessively interested in acquiring money or material things.
gird. v. encircle (a person or part of the body) with a belt or band. <SPECIAL USAGE> secure (a garment or sword) on the body with a belt or band. or surround; encircle.
subsume. v. (often be subsumed) include or absorb (something) in something else.
vaunt. v. boast about or praise (something), esp. excessively.
dissonance. n. lack of harmony among musical notes. <SPECIAL USAGE> a tension or clash resulting from the combination of two disharmonious or unsuitable elements.
internecine. adj. destructive to both sides in a conflict.
incredulous. adj. unwilling or unable to believe something.
tripartite. adj. consisting of three parts.
diffident. adj. modest or shy because of a lack of self-confidence.
implacable. adj. unable to be placated. <SPECIAL USEAGE> relentless; unstoppable.
gestalt. n. an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.
adjutant. n. a military officer who acts as an administrative assistant to a senior officer.
bolus. n. a small rounded mass of a substance, esp. of chewed food at the moment of swallowing. <SPECIAL USAGE> a type of large pill used in veterinary medicine.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Banking & Financial Services Litigation · Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
Economic pressures have created significant challenges for the financial services industry. Today, businesses need our trial lawyers who are skilled in banking and financial services litigation to resolve challenges and take advantage of opportunities.
Representing a global bank in the largest receivership action in Minnesota. The bank loaned a borrower several hundred million dollars. The borrower defaulted. F&B commenced an action against the borrower and successfully moved to establish a receivership to provide for the orderly liquidation of borrower’s assets.
Representing a regional bank in foreclosing on 100 town home units. The matter included obtaining approval from the bankruptcy court to proceed with the foreclosures.
Defending a local bank against claims for negligent representation in connection with a business loan. We obtained a dismissal of all claims against the Bank.
Representing a local bank in connection with losses sustained as a result of an officer’s lending practices. A claim was asserted against the bank’s insurer. The case was favorably resolved before trial.
Representing a group of banks in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case involving a large real estate developer. We successfully negotiated the voluntary surrender of the properties in which the banks held mortgages.
Representing a regional bank in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy involving a debtor that owned and managed several commercial shopping centers around the country. We successfully asserted the bank’s position as a fully secured lender. The bank will receive full payment under the plan of reorganization.
Representing investment bankers around the country in matters involving their employment and payment of fees in Chapter 11 cases.
Representing a Minnesota mortgage company in a non-compete/misappropriation of trade secrets case. The mortgage company sued a competitor and former employees. The matter was successfully resolved before trial.
Representing a commercial lender in a fraudulent transfer action brought in federal court. The plaintiff sought damages from our client for allegedly participating in a debtor’s scheme to fraudulently transfer assets to avoid payment of a judgment. After obtaining a favorable ruling from the Court, the case was successfully resolved for less than the cost of defense.
Representing a commercial lender in an effort to recover amounts loaned to facilitate an international sale of luxury goods. The borrowers refused to re-pay the loans, claiming that a manufacturer located in Hong Kong had possession of the funds. Using international discovery procedures under the Hague Convention, we established that the loan proceeds wired to a Hong Kong bank were subsequently funneled back to the borrowers in the United States. The borrowers conceded liability and agreed to repay the loans in full.
Representing a regional bank in a negligent lending lawsuit initiated by a commercial borrower. The borrower also asserted claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract, consumer fraud, and violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. We successfully moved to dismiss all claims asserted against the bank and obtained judgment against the borrower on the bank’s counterclaims, including payment of attorneys’ fees.
Representing a national bank/trustee in a lawsuit brought by the beneficiary of a trust for breach of fiduciary duty. After a trial, the Court entered judgment in favor of the bank and dismissed all claims.
Acrometal Cos. Inc. v. First American Bank of Brainerd, 475 N.W.2d 487 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
Minnesota Hotel Co., Inc. v. ROSA Development, 495 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
Aratex Services, Inc. v. Blue Horse, Inc., 497 N.W.2d 283 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
Broken Aero Services, Inc. v. Marquette Bank Monticello, 33 UCC Rep. 2d 930 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
Ash v. Marquette Bank, WL 423559 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
Union Bank and Trust Co. v. SUPERVALU, Inc., WL 672762 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
Bradley v. First Nat’l Bank of Walker, N.A., 711 N.W.2d 121 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Duncan is a barrister who specialises in complex matrimonial finance proceedings and children law matters. “An excellent all-rounder, he’s well prepared, has a calm manner, is good on his feet, and has an excellent practice in arbitration…There aren’t sufficient words of praise to describe Duncan Brooks. If he could be cloned, there wouldn’t be any other style of barrister.” (Chambers UK). He is “one of the very leading technical lawyers; a smart tactician and persuasive advocate” (Legal 500).
Duncan has been a Family Arbitrator (MCIArb) since 2013 and has delivered awards in 20 arbitrations. He has conducted 23 Private FDRs as the tribunal. He has appeared in many more arbitrations and Private FDRs as a barrister.
Duncan is familiar with the financial complexities arising in cases involving high net worth clients, including businesses, trusts, taxation and international forum disputes (both in respect to divorce/financial applications and also relocating with children). He is often instructed where there is a knotty point of law and for third parties who are intervening in proceedings.
* IX v. IY  EWHC 3053 (Fam) (led by Nicholas Cusworth QC). Acted for a party who received £9.3m following a 4-year marriage and 7-year relationship. Issues included identification of the matrimonial element of a business brought into the relationship by the other party.
* XW v. XH  EWFC 76 (led by Lucy Stone QC). Acted for a party who received £115m. Arguments included the application of a pre-nuptial agreement, special contribution, and the valuation/matrimonial element of a business.
* K v. L (Non-Matrimonial Property: Special Contribution) 3 All ER 733,  1 WLR 306,  2 FLR 980 (led by Lucy Stone QC). Acted for a party who inherited shares which grew to a value of £57m. The other party was awarded £5m after a long marriage.
* Arif v Anwar & Rehan  EWHC 124 (Fam). Appeared before Norris J (a Judge of the Chancery Division) against chancery and family QCs in a dispute about the ownership of a family home and breaches of trust.
* Hope v. Krejci & Others  EWHC 1780 (Fam),  1 FLR 182, where Mostyn J transferred a company asset to the wife adopting the “telescoping” principle.
* XW v XH (above). Successfully argued that a foreign marital regime did not limit the wife’s claims in English divorce proceedings.
* Mittal v. Mittal  EWCA Civ 1255,  Fam 102,  2 WLR 1033,  1 FLR 1514 (led by Tim Amos QC). Leading case about the English court’s power to stay divorce proceedings where there is a case pending in a foreign jurisdiction.
* Kim v. Morris  2 FLR 1197 (led by Tim Amos QC). Represented the husband. Technical problems with the divorce petition meant that the wife’s English petition was dismissed and the divorce proceeded in Singapore (as the husband wished).
* Duncan has been published and regularly lectures on this topic. He has a particular expertise in international forum disputes and international enforcement.
* XW v. XH (No 2)  EWFC 44. Reporting restrictions in relation to the case of XW v. XH.
* O v. H & W (unreported) before Munby P. Acted for a third party who obtained access to hearings and documents in financial remedy proceedings.
* K v. L (above). Exceptionally, a reporting restrictions order was made, preserving the parties’ anonymity following a hearing in the Court of Appeal.
Re S (A Child)  EWCA Civ 705,  1 FLR 183. Successfully appealed an order that did not comply with the technical requirements of a contact or residence order under the law as it then stood.
Re B (Removal from Jurisdiction); Re S (Removal from Jurisdiction)  2 FLR 1043. Permission to remove from the jurisdiction – relocation to Australia to live with new partner.
* Deputy District Judge since 2010, sitting in the Family and County Courts. Duncan hears trials and applications in cases involving (amongst others) financial provision following separation, private law Children Act disputes, personal injury, landlord and tenant, consumer credit and enforcement.
* Family Arbitrator (MCIArb) since 2013.
* Collaborative Lawyer since 2009. Duncan advises in writing and in five-way meetings.
Private Financial Dispute Resolutions – A Short Guide (Editor with Sir Hugh Bennett), Class Legal (2018).
Arbitration is Moving Mainstream, The Review 180 (2016) 32.
Duncan is married with two children. He enjoys singing, playing cricket and tennis.
2. I, Duncan Brooks, collect record, store, use and am responsible for personal information about you.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. EWCA v. v. v. v. v. EWCA