Vet prof wins lawsuit against U.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered the University to pay damages to a veterinary professor for defamation and breach of contract last month. The Supreme Court overturned an appeals court ruling and reduced the original damages owed to Jorge Ferrer from $5 million to $2.9 million. Ferrer originally filed the lawsuit in 1992, following a 1990 incident of alleged negligence. He was researching the effects of virus HTLV-1 on a group of lambs at the New Bolton Center, a center for large animal research in the School of Veterinary Medicine. The HTLV-1 virus is a cancer-causing agent similar to HIV, and Ferrer was studying whether lambs possess an agent that prevents the virus from turning into cancer. The contaminated lambs used in the experiment were tagged but never separated from the rest of the flock. About 100 pre-schoolers and thirty chaperones were exposed to the virus when an unknowing veterinarian allowed them to pet the contaminated lambs while on field trips. Tests later confirmed that no one was infected and that the likelihood of infection through petting was small. But following the incident, former Vet School Dean Edwin Andrews, former Provost Michael Aiken and former Vice Provost for Research Barry Cooperman disciplined Ferrer for negligence by preventing him from doing any further animal research and conducting or supervising any studies with the virus between February 1991 and June 1992. A University committee investigated the incident and found Ferrer innocent of any misconduct charges. Additionally, the Faculty Senate's Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility twice found that the sanctions were unfair and should be removed. However, they were not lifted by the University. Ferrer sued the University in June 1992, claiming that he had been defamed and that the University had broken the terms of his contract by preventing him from completing his research. In February 1999, a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court jury agreed with him, awarding him $5 million. Following the University's appeal of the decision, however, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that Ferrer had suffered no irreparable damage and that the jury was unfounded in awarding him any money. Ferrer appealed this decision, and last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court again overturned the ruling, finding that the University was indeed accountable for breaching his contract, making Ferrer eligible for damages. In the majority ruling, Chief Justice Stephen Zappala determined that, "it would cost $2.9 million to begin to rebuild Dr. Ferrer's research program." According to a statement issued by the University, administrators are "disappointed with the decision of the Supreme Court, reversing the ruling of the Superior Court, which was the intermediate appellate court. "We believed the decision of the Superior Court was correct, and we continue to believe that," the statement said. But not everyone shares such views. The University was "responsible for substantial harm to Dr. Ferrer," Ferrer's attorney Thomas Sprague said. "Not once but twice, the committee recommended removing the sanctions against him and University administrators ignored that. That's the first and, to my knowledge, only time that's ever occurred." Ferrer, who is still a professor at the University, declined to comment. According to Law School professor David Rudovsky, who represented Penn in the case, the University has submitted a petition for re-argument, which the Supreme Court should decide in the coming weeks. Cooperman could not be reached for comment.