Massachusetts Injury Lawyer Blog

An appeal by a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case involving a failure to diagnose cancer has led to a new trial. The Appeals Court reversed the directed verdict, entered by Superior Court Judge Patrick Brady, after finding that the judge had improperly allowed the defendant's motion for a directed verdict.

The case arose from the treatment of a patient who was having complaints of hoarseness and acid reflux. After several months of delay, a CT scan on the neck was finally performed, which revealed the presence of tumor near the esophagus and in the lung; the tumor was affecting the nerves which controlled the vocal cords. A biopsy revealed a non-small cell cancer which was staged at Stage 3B. Treatment was unsuccessful, and the patient died a year and a half later.

Claims were brought for medical malpractice resulting in conscious pain and suffering, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, among others. At trial, the plaintiff's expert was prepared to testify that if it had been diagnosed in a timely manner, the cancer would have been at Stage 2 or possibly Stage 1. Judge Brady would not permit the testimony of "possibly Stage 1" and eventually foreclosed any meaningful expert testimony on his opinion about the stage of the cancer. Those rulings set the stage for the judge's allowance of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict.

On appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court found that the testimony about the tumor being "possible Stage 1" was properly excluded, but that the testimony about the tumor being likely Stage 2 was improperly excluded. Accordingly, the judge's ruling was reversed, and the plaintiff will now have a second chance at trial.

The Appeals Court also recapitulated the necessary evidence for cases involving the loss of a chance when a physician fails to diagnose cancer. Loss of a chance cases require opinion evidence on the stage of the cancer at the time the diagnosis should have been made. The evidence does not require exact staging; a range of stages is permissible. Also required is evidence on the likelihood of survival after a timely diagnosis. The evidence must include an opinion about the difference in likelihood which more probably than not resulted from the delay. Citing Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, 452 Mass. 1 (2008), the Court noted:

Under a loss of chance theory, a "plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the physician's negligence caused the plaintiff's injury, where the injury consists of the diminished likelihood of achieving a more favorable medical outcome." Id. at 17. The court explained: "[P]robability of survival is part of the patient's condition. When a physician's negligence diminishes or destroys a patient's chance of survival, the patient has suffered real injury. The patient has lost something of great value: a chance to survive, to be cured, or otherwise to achieve a more favorable medical outcome.... Thus we recognize loss of chance not as a theory of causation, but as a theory of injury." Id. at 16.

The case decided was Carreri v. Isihara, Mass.App.Ct. No. 10-P-109 (August 25, 2011).

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Appeal Leads to New Trial in Massachusetts Superior Court" »

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently ruled that Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company may have violated state law when it failed to make prompt payments on a no-fault claim. The ruling reversed a trial court decision, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings on the plaintiff's claims against the insurance company for bad faith.

Importantly, the court stated that the emotional distress the plaintiff claims she suffered could be considered as part of her damages under the Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 93A. There is very limited authority in Massachusetts for emotional distress damages in claims under M.G.L. c. 93A.

The facts of the case were straightforward. Ms. Chery was injured in a car accident and obtained medical treatment. Metropolitan was responsible for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, but failed to pay the bills within thirty days, as required by M.G.L. c. 90, Sec. 34M. The plaintiff filed suit, claiming violations of c. 90, c. 93A, and c. 176D, which governs claims and settlements. The insurance company eventually paid the bills, then claimed it could not be liable for its bad faith claims handling. The District Court judge agreed and plaintiff appealed.

The Appeals Court agreed that the claimant had no further right under the insurance contact itself, as the bills had been paid. However, the court found that there was evidence of bad faith, and the simple payment of the bills did not cure the harm caused by the delay. Among other things, the plaintiff had to file suit, incur litigation expenses, and suffer the unreasonable delay. The plaintiff also claimed that she suffered emotional distress, as her bills were put into collection, and she worried about her credit being affected. The court specifically ruled that the emotional distress damages, even though not readily quantifiable, may be considered compensable under Massachusetts law.

The case was a victory for Massachusetts consumers.

The case is Chery v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Massachusetts Appeals Court No. 10-P-103 (June 16, 2011).

Continue reading "Massachusetts Court Rules Against Insurer in Bad Faith Case - Victory for Consumers" »

Ruling Confirms Rights of Injured Workers to Bring Third Party Claims Against General Contractor after Receiving Workers' Compensation Insurance

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) today affirmed the right of an employee of an uninsured subcontractor to bring third party claims against the general contractor, even if the general contractor has made workers' compensation payments pursuant to G.L. c. 152, § 18. The case was an important victory for workers injured in construction accidents.

The case arose from an explosion on a residential construction site. The explosion killed a worker and seriously injured his son, who was also working at the site. Both men were employed by Great Green Barrier Co., which did not have workers' compensation insurance. As a result, pursuant to G.L. c. 152, § 18, the general contractor, Henry C. Becker Custom Building Ltd., was liable for the workers' compensation obligations. This obligation arises under the policy in Massachusetts that a general contractor is responsible to hire only subcontractors which have workers' compensation insurance available for their employees.

The defendant argued that the statutory scheme prevented the plaintiffs from making third party claims once they had accepted lump sum workers' compensation settlements pursuant to G.L. c. 152, § 23, which ordinarily bars workers from maintaining negligence claims against their employers if they have accepted workers' compensation benefits. While this argument had persuaded the trial court, which granted summary judgment for the defendant, the ruling had been overturned by the Appeals Court. Wentworth v. Henry C. Becker Custom Bldg. Ltd, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 507 (2010).

The SJC granted further appellate review and affirmed the Appeals Court ruling, which reversed the summary judgment for the defendant.

Click here for more information on this case.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Denies General Contractor Immunity" »

By David White

Continue reading "Commercial Landlord Liability for Personal Injury Expanded In Massachusetts" »

An important Supreme Judicial Court decision this week affirmed the statutory right for admitting medical bills in Massachusetts courts, but opened the door for rebuttal.

In Law v. Griffith, SJC-10463 (July 20, 2010), Massachusetts' highest court ruled on a Middlesex Superior Court case involving G.L. c. 233, Sec. 79G. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed an earlier opinion of the Appeals Court, reversed a Superior Court judge and ordered a new trial in a case where the judge improperly restricted evidence of medical expenses.

The high court's decision provides a window for attorneys to ask judges to tender jury instructions on medical liens.

Read the case and analysis from Breakstone, White & Gluck here.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Lawyer Alert: A SJC Ruling on Admissibility of Medical Expenses" »

Massachusetts has banned the commercial use and sale of lacquer sealer, a highly flammable wood floor finishing product linked to deadly home fires.

Gov. Deval Patrick signed the safety bill into law this week. The bill had strong support from MassCOSH (the Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health), which convened a Floor Finishing Safety Task Force to investigate the problem.

The task force was convened after a 2004 house fire in Somerville claimed the lives of two Vietnamese floor sanders and burned their co-workers. Shortly after, a Vietnamese flooring contractor died in a Hull house fire. Both fires involved the use of lacquer sealer used in floor finishing.

"This groundbreaking law will save lives and end floor finishing fires that have caused so much pain and destruction," said Marcy Goldstein-Gelb, executive director of MassCOSH. "We owe a great deal of thanks to the Governor and Legislature for recognizing these grave dangers and taking action to protect workers and residents."

Following the three fatal fires, the Floor Finishing Safety Task Force issued a 2005 report stating Boston had seen 25 fires involving lacquer sealer over the 10 previous years and Needham had seen two in the prior year that threatened worker safety.

In the 2005 report, the task force recommended the state promote use of non-flammable water-based finishers to protect Massachusetts worker safety and prevent worker deaths.

The task force observed the problem of flammable lacquer sealer was targeting Massachusetts' Vietnamese community, which has a large concentration of workers in the floor finishing industry.

The bill proposing the ban was jointly filed by state Rep. Martin Walsh and Sen. Patricia Jehlen.

Breakstone, White & Gluck of Boston is a supporter of MassCOSH and its work to protect Massachusetts construction workers and other employees.

To learn more, visit the MassCOSH website.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Law Bans Highly-Flammable Floor Sealer" »

It's always a tragedy when someone leaves a bar after a night of drinking, steps in his or her car, and causes a motor vehicle accident resulting in personal injury.

For years, that tragedy was compounded by Massachusetts law, which let bars and restaurants operate without liquor liability insurance. Like other businesses, Massachusetts restaurants and bars have traditionally carried general commercial liability insurance covering on-site problems, including slip and falls and other injuries. But this insurance offers no assistance to drunk driving accident victims.

In late May, Massachusetts lawmakers corrected this and passed a law requiring restaurant and bar owners to carry liquor liability insurance. Establishments must carry a minimum of $250,000 per person/$500,000 per accident coverage. In other words, policies must provide a minimum $250,000 for bodily injury or death of one person and a total of $500,000 per incident involving bodily injury or death.

Innocent victims of drunk driving accidents still face the traditional hurdles in proving their cases against bars. One hurdle is strong juror bias. Juries do not hesitate to hold the drunk driver responsible. But juries are often reluctant to blame a drinking establishment for over-serving a patron, even though the law is perfectly clear that a bar has a legal duty to not serve someone who is intoxicated.

Restaurants and bars seek to avoid liability for over-serving patrons, and they typically claim they did not recognize that the patron was intoxicated. The recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case of Rivera v. Club Caravan, Inc., 77 Mass. App. Ct. 17 (2010), reviewed the legal standards for "dram shop cases." Generally the plaintiff must prove the patron showed outward signs of intoxication by the time he or she was served her last drink. However, circumstantial proof can also be sufficient. If the patron had consumed excessive quantities of alcohol, a jury can draw an inference that he would have been visibly intoxicated. So, where a patron is served fourteen drinks in two hours, as in the Rivera case, or was served six or more white Russians, as in another Massachusetts case, the circustantial evidence is strong enough.  

Personal injury attorney Ronald Gluck called the new law "a step forward" for the safety of Massachusetts residents.  "Restaurants and bars will want to have strong policies in place--and to follow them--not just to avoid liability but also to avoid large increases in their insurance premiums. The new liquor insurance law should help reduce drunk driving accidents in Massachusetts."

Click here for the full text of the law.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Bars Must Now Carry Liquor Liability Insurance" »

Welcome news today as the Massachusetts Legislature has finally agreed on a new law that will make it illegal to text while driving. Once the bill is signed by the Governor, Massachusetts will be in line with twenty-eight other states that have already outlawed text messaging while driving.

This law comes in the wake of several tragic text message-based accidents. In May 2009, 62 people suffered personal injury after a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority trolley collided with another trolley because the driver was texting his girlfriend. In September 2008, a California commuter train engineer missed a stop signal while trading texts with a friend, leading to a train accident resulting in the wrongful death of 25 people. In addition, there have been several high profile motor vehicle wrongful death cases in recent memory which were caused by inattentive drivers who were texting as they drove.

The law has several other public safety improvements. The new law will require that older drivers renew their licenses in person and take an eye exam every five years beginning at age 75. Older drivers were involved in several serious car accidents in 2009 in Massachusetts. Further, the law will forbid anyone under the age of 18 from using a cell phone while driving.

Boston personal injury attorney David White said of the new law, "Distracted driving is a serious safety problem. The use of cell phones and text messaging are two of the biggest distractions for drivers. These new provisions will vastly increase the safety of Massachusetts roadways."

A recent study found that texting while driving makes a person twenty times more likely to get into a car crash or near-crash. The problem is most severe for inexperienced drivers. It is hoped that this new law will raise awareness to this growing epidemic of serious personal injuries caused by careless texting motorists.

 For more information

Boston Globe

Virgina Tech Transportation Institute Research Project

Continue reading "Massachusetts Law Will Ban Text Messaging While Driving" »

Preventable hospital infections are claiming some 100,000 lives a year nationwide and threatening patient safety, despite a renewed focus on cleaning up hospitals, the US Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has found.

A recent report found in-hospital infections warrant "urgent attention," with rates of post-operative bloodstream infections and catheter-associated urinary tract infections increasing by 8 and 4 percent respectively. Yet there is good news: the Agency found overall health care quality is slowly improving.

The Agency found hospitals have adopted basic standards for hand hygiene, disinfecting patients, sterile handling of equipment and antibiotic use. 

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, anticipates a new law will improve the rates for hospital-acquired infections and prevent fatalities.  Starting in the 2015 fiscal year, hospitals with high rate of infections will face penalties.

Hospital-acquired infections are pervasive and fatal but also extremely preventable.  The Committee to Reduce Infection Death (RID) points to several areas where hospitals can improve: First, over half the time, doctors do not disinfect their hands immediately before touching a patient.  Also, many hospitals do not screen incoming patients for MRSA, one of the most pervasive in-hospital infections.  Finally, surgery patients may not be advised to shower with chlorhexidine soap daily before the operation, although the practice reduces the risk of infection.  RID hypothesizes as evidence of the preventable nature of in-hospital infections grows, so will hospital liability.

For more information on the Agency's Annual Quality and Disparities Report, see this press release or the reports themselves.

For information about different types of hospital-acquired infections and methods to reduce infections, see this guide from the World Health Organization.

Continue reading "New Report Finds that Preventable Infections Still Plague Hospitals-- New Law to Crack Down on Unclean Hospitals" »

A lawsuit over tired truck driving may eliminate an embattled rule that concerns safety advocates about the risk of truck accidents, motor vehicle accidents and wrongful deaths on the nation's roadways.

Since 2004, advocacy groups have been battling an hours-of-service rule passed by the Bush administration that increased the maximum number of consecutive hours a trucker could work from ten to eleven and decreased the rest and recovery time from fifty hours to thirty-four. Safety advocates claim that the changes are likely to lead to more motor vehicle accidents, serious personal injuries and wrongful deaths.

Twice, advocacy groups have successfully challenged the rule in court just to have the administration reissue the same rule.  In 2004, the court vacated the hours-of-service rule on the grounds that the government did not adequately consider the effects of longer driving hours on individual truck driver welfare and public safety.  In 2007, the court vacated the rule again because the agency did not allow public notice and comment on the new crash risk analysis used as justification to reissue the same rule. 

Advocacy groups brought a third lawsuit in 2009 and will finally see an outcome. As part of a legal settlement, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) have agreed to redraft the existing hours-of-service rule. In January, the agencies held several sessions around the country to gather public comment.

As they start work, safety advocates hope that the new rule will reflect the dangerous reality of tired truckers.  The deaths and personal injuries caused by drivers falling asleep in the cab can be catastrophic for truck drivers and people on the road. 

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board points to driver fatigue as a likely factor in twenty to forty percent of truck crashes.  Safety advocates, including members of Parents Against Tired Truckers and Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, applaud the settlement as a step in the right direction towards safe roads.

There are typically over 1,000 Massachusetts truck accidents every year, nearly half of which involve out-of-state motor carriers. In 2006, 34 people were killed in Massachusetts trucking accidents.

For more information on the regulations, see the FMCSA website.  For an overview of what information FMSCA is considering in formulating a new rule, see this presentation. The Truck Safety Coalition has a collection of stories and press releases on the hours-of-service rule and trucker fatigue.     

Continue reading "Tired Truckers and Truck Accidents May Be Reduced with New Regulations---Massachusetts Highways Should Be Safer" »

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has affirmed the broad admissibility of certified medical reports under M.G.L. c. 233, § 79G. The case, O'Malley v. Soske, Appeals Court No. 09-P-315, (March 31, 2010), is an important reminder of the intent of the legislature when the statute was amended in 1988. In short, in any proceeding commenced in any court, commission or agency, the judge should admit properly certified medical reports.

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident in Boston. She claimed that she suffered neck and back injuries, and required surgery. The defendant contested the nature of the injuries.

The court upheld the admission into evidence of the report of Dr. Lupien, an orthopedic surgeon, who is usually identified as a defense expert, who had examined the plaintiff for the defendant. His opinion was that the accident had not caused serious trauma. The plaintiff lost at trial on the issue of medical causation and her lawyer appealed. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment.

For a complete analysis of this case, please see the Practice Alert on our website.  

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that non-patient claims for personal injury resulting from medical malpractice must first be presented to the Massachusetts medical malpractice tribunal.  The tribunal's job is to review medical malpractice personal injury claims and decide whether there was actual medical malpractice involved or if the injury was merely an unfortunate medical result.

The decision concerned a hospital worker who was killed when a heavily medicated woman lost control of her car and drove it into an entrance to the Brockton Hospital where the victim worked.  The victim's wife sued the doctors for her husband's wrongful death, alleging they had failed to warn the woman that it was dangerous to drive while on her medications.

Ordinarily, medical negligence cases may only be brought by a patient against his or her medical provider. However, third parties may bring claims against a provider if the provider failed to warn the patient of the effects of medication, and the patient then injured the third party. The exception is a narrow one.

The case clarifies pre-trial procedures in such third party cases, as it was unclear whether or not an injured non-patient was required to bring their medical malpractice claim before the tribunal.  However, with today's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling, it is now clear that any person looking to bring a claim for personal injury resulting from medical malpractice must first present their claim to the medical malpractice tribunal, whether or not they were the patient.

The case was Vasa v. Compass Medical, P.C., SJC-10457, March 2, 2010.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Court Requires Medical Malpractice Tribunal in Third Party Claims" »

New Trial Ordered for Tenant Who Suffered Broken Hip

Have you been injured when you slipped and fell on ice? This case may be important to you.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has granted a new trial to a plaintiff injured after falling on ice after the Superior Court justice misapplied the legal rule governing open and obvious dangers in a premises liability. The Court limited the application of the open and obvious rule in snow and ice cases.

At the trial, the judge allowed instructions on the defense of an "open and obvious" danger, and failed to instruct the jury on comparative negligence. The verdict was for the landowner which had failed to treat a large area of frozen slush with deep footprints in it.

The case made it clear: The open and obvious defense does not apply to snow and ice cases. Snow and ice do present obvious dangers to pedestrians, but often there is no safer route for a pedestrian to take. The proper questions for a jury is whether the landowner was reasonable in his or her effort to reduce the danger from an unnatural accumulation of snow or ice, and whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent.

The case is good news for pedestrians, whose rights to recover for injuries in snow and ice cases are made stronger by the case.

For a more complete discussion of this case, please read the article on our website, Massachusetts Appeals Court Clarifies Law on Responsibility of Landowner to Remove Snow and Ice.

The case was Soederberg v. Concord Greene Condominium Association, Appeals CourtNo. 09-P-380, February 25, 2010.

If you have been injured after slipping and falling on ice: Please contact our office if you need legal representation for personal injuries caused by slipping and falling on ice. We have over 80 years of experience on these types of cases.

The Federal Government is taking a firm stand against the dangers caused by texting drivers. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced Tuesday that, effective immediately, commercial bus and truck drivers are prohibited from texting while driving. Texting truck and bus drivers face civil or criminal penalties of up to $2,750. 

The goal of the new law is to reduce truck accidents and motor vehicle accidents caused by distracted driving.  According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, drivers take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every six seconds while texting.  This means drivers who text are more than 20 times more likely to get in an accident than nondistracted drivers.

This is not the first move that the government has made to reduce the dangers of texting drivers.  Nineteen states have passed laws banning texting while driving.  President Obama has also signed an executive order requiring federal employees not to text while driving government-owned vehicles or with government-owned equipment. 

The attention on texting comes after several high profile accidents caused by texting motor vehicle operators.  In September 2008, a California commuter train engineer missed a stop signal while trading text messages with a friend, leading to a train accident resulting in the wrongful death of 25 people.  In May 2009, 62 people suffered personal injury after a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority trolley driver collided with another trolley while texting.

For more information about the dangers of distracted driving, see the Transportation Department's website www.distraction.gov.

Continue reading "New Law Against Texting Intended to Reduce Distracted Driving and Truck Accidents--Rule Should Improve Safety for Massachusetts Drivers" »

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has allowed the claim of a child who was bitten by a dog to proceed to trial against the landlords, even though the landlords did not own the dog.  The ruling reverses a lower court ruling in favor of the landlord.

The plaintiff was ten years old when he was attacked by a pit bull named Tiny. Tiny belonged to another tenant in the same 4-family building. Tiny had been found in the woods and adopted by the family. Tiny had demonstrated some aggressive behavior prior to the date of the incident.  The plaintiff's family maintained that they had lodged multiple complaints with the landlords about not just the presence of the dog, but also its aggressive behavior. The landlords were also informed that Tiny was allowed to roam unrestrained, a violation of the Waltham leash law. The landlords claimed they had no knowledge that the dog might be dangerous.

The landlords had a no-dog policy for the premises, but failed to enforce that policy with regard to Tiny.  In fact, the plaintiff's family had previously given up its dogs because of the landlords' policy.

On the date of the incident, Tiny was sitting on a porch, unrestrained, then ran across the yard, jumped a fence, and bit the plaintiff who was playing in the neighbor's yard. The ten-year old had mulitiple dog bite injuries to his leg.

The Superior Court judge ruled that the landlords were not negligent, and that the fears of the pit bull were "subjective."  The Appeals Court disagreed.

In Massachusetts, a third party such as a landlord, is not liable under the Massachusetts strict liability statute governing dogs. While a dogs owner or keeper is strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog, a third party can be liable only if he or she is negligent. A landlord does not insure that the property will be safe, and has a duty to use reasonable care for the premises.  Thus, in this case, the plaintiff is required to prove that the landlord knew or should have known of the dangers of the dog.  The landlords could not be held liable just on the fact that the dog was of a dangerous breed, but could be held liable if they had knowledge of its dangerous behavior.

The Appeals Court also noted that negligence cases are ordinarily best left to a jury's consideration, since the cases often turn on disputed facts. Given the disputed facts in this case, namely whether the landlord had received reports of the dog's dangerous behavior, the case was sent back to the Superior Court for trial.

The name of the case is Nutt v. Florio, Appeals Court No. 08-P-81 (October 19, 2009).  

Continue reading "Massachusetts Appeals Court Allows Dog Bite Case Against Landlord to Proceed" »