Decision in favor of Mark Hobratschk over Cochlear Corporation and Maria Perretta
Appeals decision in favor of Mark Hobratschk over Cochlear Corporation and Perretta
Warning to Maria Perretta of inappropriate conduct towards Hobratschk

The above documents dispel any lingering myth that Cochlear Corporation somehow prevailed in the matter against Mark Hobratschk, the former Supervisor of Reimbursement Services who signed a two-year consulting contract with new competitor Med El Corporation after resigning from Cochlear.  [Redacted portions are to avoid any plausible claim of invading Perretta's privacy.]

They unequivocally show that the only two times the merits of this case were heard, the hearing officer ruled in favor of Hobratschk, concluding that he established that the "harassment [by Perretta] indeed existed and that he was not treated fairly by the employer."  Cochlear lost on appeal with the panel ruling that Cochlear not only concealed Hobratschk's resignation letter documenting the harassment, but remarkably "failed to present a witness with any first-hand knowledge of the factual circumstances."

As noted under Schlatter Defamation, Hobratschk reached an amicable financial settlement with the parties after Cochlear unlawfully interfered with the Med El contract three months after its inception.  Hobratschk voluntarily dismissed Cochlear and Med El from the breach of contract litigation but initially refused to dismiss Perretta, who had fled the state one day before her scheduled deposition regarding her soliciting a third-party named Troy Fletcher to physicially threaten Hobratschk after he also prevailed in the internal company hearing held on the matter.  Perretta was ultimately deposed and Mr. Fletcher's identity established via a phone company subpoena before Hobratschk agreed to voluntarily dismiss her in February 1999.  

By their own admission, Cochlear mishandled this matter.  Few would agree that a  mere warning to an employee that goes to the extreme of soliciting physical harm against another is an adequate response.  In fact, Cochlear lawyer Peter Edwards knew they would lose and offered Hobratschk his old position one week before the September 1996 hearing,  if he agreed not to pursue the hearing (an offer to which Hobratschk may have been more receptive had it been made by those responsible).  Cochlear's mishandling ultimately led to the entire management team being replaced shortly after Hobratschk's resignation.

Contrary to assumptions, whatever issues Hobratschk had with Cochlear ended with their departures.  Hobratschk subsequently worked closely with his successor John McClanahan on several reimbursement issues and has always maintained that if his child needed a cochlear implant, he would choose a Nucleus device.