Saint Louis University is appealing to the Missouri Supreme Court a decision from 1998 which rewarded a former researcher $300,000 for the misrepresentation of his name.

“SLU is appealing because they don’t feel that they did anything wrong,” said Tom Walsh, attorney from Bryan Cave, representing the University.

Dr. Rama K. Nemani of Mehlville, was employed as an assistant research professor at SLU and was also a research chemist for the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in St. Louis.

In 1994, Nemani’s name was listed as a co-investigator for which SLU asked the National Institute of Health to fund. Nemani said the University used his name, along with his expertise and reputation, to obtain the grant.

“When the research was underfunded by a quarter of a million dollars, Nemani’s part was cut out of the project,” Walsh said.

Upon learning that he was cut from the project, Nemani sued for invasion of privacy for the University’s use of his name without permission. Nemani claimed that the misrepresentation of his name damaged his reputation in the research community.

“Dr. Nemani understood that research at SLU involves turning in lists of names of possible people to do this research if the study were approved,” Walsh said.

According to Walsh, this decision would dramatically change the view of the invasion of privacy. “There never has there been a court case in the U.S. when an employee has successfully sued his employer for this type of incident,” Walsh said. “This is a misuse of the doctrine of invasion of privacy.”

“In the spectrum of legal usage of names, it would severely curtail the employer’s use of names of their employees,” Walsh said. “His claim of the shock and humiliation he felt when he was not used on the project simply defies reality.”

Charles A. Seigel III, legal counsel for Nemani, said this appeal could mean that employers would have the right to use employees names for whatever purpose they see fit.

Seigel, a partner of Siegel and Wolff law offices, used the example of SLU doing embryo cell research in arguments before the Missouri Supreme Court. According to Seigel, if an incident like this one were to happen again, SLU could use any researcher’s name on the grant.

With an issue this controversial, certain researchers may have moral objections to such a study.

After the ruling in 1998, the St. Louis City Court awarded Nemani $300,000. According to Seigel, the jury inquired about awarding punitive damages, but the judge would not allow it.

“That just goes to show that the jury was on our side,” Seigel said. “We were very happy after the ruling. We believe it was a fair decision.”

Seigel said that he and his client were disappointed when the appeal was approved by a unanimous decision.

“Implied consent is SLU’s only argument for use of the name without [Nemani] knowing,” Seigel said. “The jury didn’t believe it last time.”

According to Seigel, the humiliation that Nemani felt appeared while he was searching for a new position.

“He was listed as a principle investigator on this huge study, yet he had no work,” Seigel said.

When Nemani had to explain to the research community why his name was on a grant on which he was not working, he was embarrassed, Seigel said. “He didn’t want his co-workers to think that he was peddling his name.”

According to Seigel, SLU had no intention ever to use Nemani on the study.

“If SLU had even considered using Nemani for this grant, he would have been informed and involved in the process while the grant application was being presented,” Seigel said.

The case is currently being heard by the Missouri Supreme Court. No decision has yet been made regarding the appeal.