Articles Posted in Legal Strategies

Civil litigation revolves around questions of whether the named party or parties were negligent and whether the defendant or defendants caused the injury. There is less of a general discussion around another element that must be proven: damages. It is easy to assume that if someone was injured, he or she is probably paying for doctors’ bills and prescriptions that were previously absent from his or her daily life. However, if the injured party had pre-existing medical conditions with overlapping symptoms, the proof becomes much more intricate than providing a stack of receipts to the court. Medical experts may be necessary to testify as to what physical and psychological conditions, and therefore treatment of those conditions, can be attributed to the accident. Testimony may also be necessary to not only show what happened in the past but advise what lifelong impairments will result from the injury.

In a recently published decision, Fyffe v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals addressed several issues stemming from a damages-only trial. The woman was injured when she rode a public transit trolley that crashed into another trolley. Both sides agreed that the operator was negligent, but they disagreed as to what the defendants’ obligation was for reasonable and fair compensation for the injuries she suffered. The woman was employed as a gate agent for an airline and suffered injuries to her spine from the accident. The injuries prevented her from performing one of her main duties of lifting heavy suitcases. She was able to earn up to $40,000 per year plus benefits and was eligible for a 4% raise every three years, but she found herself working as a waitress for around $15,000 a year due to her injuries.
Continue reading →

As school and extra-curricular activities pick up around the state of Massachusetts, concern over serious and permanent injuries may arise among parents. Even with the best of care and protective gear, accidents can happen on sports fields or while in a bus on the way to an activity. No parent wants to see any type of harm befall his or her child, but knowledge of what options are available in the event of an injury is essential when there is a catastrophic injury to the head, neck, or spine. Accountability is also important if a person or facility failed to maintain safe premises as required by law. A civil action may provide the remedies you need by holding an at-fault party responsible for negligence and receiving payments for the money spent on medical expenses.

One of the first steps of a personal injury suit is determining who is responsible for the injury. In most auto accident cases, it is a straightforward determination that the driver of the car that caused the harm is the responsible party. In other personal injury suits, several parties can share blame for the injury. In the 2013 Massachusetts case, Moore v. Town of Billerica, the Court looked at whether or not the city should be held accountable for a serious head injury sustained by a child at a public baseball field. The trial court denied the city’s motion for summary judgment, which claimed that it could not be sued due to the protection of sovereign immunity.
Continue reading →

To succeed in a Massachusetts personal injury case, an injured person must show that the at-fault party was more than 50% responsible for the injuries suffered. In negligence actions, the defendant must owe a duty to the injured person, and the injured person is required to show that the defendant breached this duty and caused injury as a result of the breach. Recovery is possible, even if the injured person’s actions at the time of the accident contributed to the injury, as long as the percentage of responsibility remains lower than the defendant’s. This is known as comparative negligence, and it is codified under Ch. 231, Sec. 85 of the Massachusetts General Laws. While recovery is still possible, the amount of damages awarded can be reduced by the injured person’s percentage of negligence.

In Rose v. Highway Equipment Company, the Appeals Court reviewed a man’s claim against the manufacturer of a broadcast spreader for negligence and breach of warranty. The man’s hand was severely injured following an accident with the spreader while oiling the chain. For the negligence claim, the jury found the injured man to be 73% negligent and the company to be 27% negligent, which precluded any recovery because he was deemed to be predominantly responsible for his own injuries.

For the breach of warranty claim, the jury found that the man was unreasonable in his use of the equipment. As stated in the opinion, breach of warranty actions generally focus on the nature of the product, not the actions of the user, unless the user acted unreasonably. If the injured person used the product after he or she knew it was defective and dangerous, the injured person is completely barred from any type of recovery. The appellate court upheld the jury’s determination against the injured person, finding there was enough evidence to support their decision. The testimony provided during trial revealed the injured person understood the dangerous nature of the project, failed to read the safety manual, and had oiled the machine several times.
Continue reading →

When you seek medical care in Massachusetts, you expect the procedure or treatment to help you heal. However, if a physician’s or hospital’s actions lead to medical malpractice, it can worsen prior health conditions or result in death. A 2014 Federal First Circuit Court of Appeals case, Sanchez v. United States, underlines how essential it is for you to have knowledgeable counsel at your side.

All personal injury lawsuits filed in Massachusetts must adhere to the statute of limitations, a deadline imposed by law to ensure timely claims that are not subject to memory lapses and loss of evidence. In Sanchez, a woman who had given birth to her third child through caesarean section died two days after the birth. The lawsuit initiated by her estate in Massachusetts state court sued both the obstetrician and anesthesiologist and was filed nearly three years after the death of the mother. The estate met the three-year statute of limitations under Massachusetts state law, but the doctors were federal employees and covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which limits the timeframe for lawsuits to two years.

In the decision, the Court explained that, while the doctors may have appeared to work for a nongovernmental agency, any doctor who works for a facility that receives federal funds is considered a federal employee. The Court also reviewed the history of the FTCA, which allows lawsuits to move forward under federal jurisdiction if they were filed within two years in the state court system. The Court of Appeals did not believe the actions taken in the lawsuit by the estate’s attorneys showed due diligence in researching the hospital and its doctor employees to determine the best course of legal action.
Continue reading →

Under Massachusetts law, there are several types of damages an injured person can recover through civil action: economic damages, which cover medical expenses, continuing medical care, lost wages, and inability to earn future income; and non-economic damages, which include pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment, and disfigurement. In recent news, a Florida jury awarded $23.6 billion in punitive damages to a widow who lost her husband in 1996 to lung cancer. The widow alleged that the tobacco industry failed to warn her husband that nicotine was addictive and can cause lung cancer. The deceased husband smoked from age 13 till his death at age 36.

Punitive damages are damages designed to punish through monetary means and discourage similar behavior in the future by the at-fault party and the general public. They are reserved for the most egregious and outrageous behavior by at-fault parties. In Massachusetts, punitive damages are only available if granted by statute. (See International Fid. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 443 N.E.2d 1308 (1983).) Examples of actions that allow punitive damages are wrongful death actions under Chapter 229, Section 2 and employee discrimination actions under Chapter 151B. Punitive damages are available for medical malpractice suits, but those have a cap of $500,000 unless the injury is catastrophic. Massachusetts case law has established that punitive damages are only available for conduct that is outrageous due to the defendant’s evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others.

In Haddad v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91 (2009), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinstated a $1 million punitive damage jury verdict for a woman who sued her employer, Wal-mart, for discrimination in violation of Chapter 151. In this case, the woman was awarded $972,774 in compensatory damages, but the judge set aside the $1 million punitive award, reasoning that punitive damages could only have been awarded if the employer acted with the specific knowledge it was violating the anti-discrimination statute. The Supreme Judicial Court noted in its decision that this requirement only applied to age discrimination cases. The Court also referred to prior rulings that held if the employer unlawfully interfered with the legally protected rights of others, that would be enough “reckless indifference” to warrant punitive damages. The Court noted the history of refusing to pay the hourly differential to the plaintiff, a female pharmacist, and firing her for one offense after 10 years of employment equated to egregious behavior.
Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, if someone dies due to the negligence of another, recovery for damages like lost wages, loss of companionship, and funeral expenses may be available through the Wrongful Death Act. The Wrongful Death Act allows recovery if a willful, wanton, or reckless act caused the death of a person who would have been eligible for personal injury damages if he or she had survived. If there was malicious, willful, wanton, or reckless conduct or gross negligence by the at-fault party, punitive damages may be available.

Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling in Estate of Moulton v. Puopolo, which prevented the estate of a counselor from pursuing damages under the Wrongful Death Act. The counselor was killed at a mental health clinic by a patient who had a long history of criminal acts and violent behavior. The pleadings alleged willful, wanton, reckless, and malicious conduct that constituted gross negligence by the collective defendants. The defendants included the directors of the mental health institution, psychiatric consultants involved in the patient’s admission, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the patient himself. The pleadings claimed that the directors should have known the patient’s history of violence and that the directors failed to enact policies to handle a patient with such violent tendencies. The estate left out the hospital because the hospital was the direct employer and immune from suit under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The director defendants appealed the lower court’s decision, which refused to extend the immunity from suit extended to employers under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court first looked at the history of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which was designed to provide quick payment for injuries suffered by employees. In exchange for quicker, more assured recovery, employees are not allowed to pursue personal injury actions against their respective employers. Employers are provided with immunity from personal injury suits so that they aren’t entrenched in time-consuming and expensive litigation.
Continue reading →

When any personal injury case goes to trial, the client’s medical records and itemized medical bills must be certified in order to be introduced into evidence. Without this mandated certification, the judge will throw out the medical records and bills.

A certification is a document that the doctor or authorized agent of a hospital signs certifying that the bills are fair and reasonable and that the records are true and accurate. Massachusetts law requires that the certification be “subscribed and sworn to under the penalties of perjury.” M.G.L. c. 233 § 79G.

More importantly, a copy of the medical records and bills, along with a “written notice of intention to offer such bills or reports as evidence” must be mailed via certified mail return receipt requested to all opposing parties no less than ten (10) days before trial. M.G.L. c. 233 § 79G. Once the return receipt has been received, counsel must file an Affidavit with the court stating that he or she has complied with the obligations required by M.G.L. c. 233 § 79G.
Continue reading →

According to the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act, Medicare automatically has a lien on your settlement for reimbursement of all injury-related medical expenses it paid on your behalf as a result of your accident or injury. This means that Medicare is legally entitled to a portion of your settlement proceeds. Medicare’s payments, i.e. conditional payments, are payments made to your medical providers for medical expenses that were incurred on or after your date of injury up until the date of your settlement. Under Federal regulation, Medicare has a right to recover from your settlement proceeds for all the money it [Medicare] paid out for your injury-related claims.

Over the past few years, there has been discussion about personal injury cases and whether a Medicare Set Aside Arrangement (MSA) is appropriate. “Determining whether a Medicare Set Aside Arrangement (MSA) is appropriate is based on case-specific facts.” Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section, The Brief, Fall 2012.Whether a MSA is needed in a workers’ compensation settlement depends on the settlement terms. For example, when a workers’ compensation case settles on an unaccepted basis, the settlement is three-fold containing allocations for wage loss, past medical expenses, and future medical expenses. Since the settlement specifically includes future medical expenses, a Medicare Set Aside Arrangement would be appropriate. However, in Massachusetts, almost all workers’ compensation settlements are based on accepted liability and there are no allocated future medical expenses because the settlement agreement allows the medical expenses to remain open after the settlement. This means that any future treatment would be covered by the workers’ compensation insurance company and therefore no Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement is warranted.

When it comes to a personal injury settlement, every case is different so there is no cookie-cutter mold as in workers’ compensation settlements. Personal injury cases involve various limits of liability, pain and suffering, multiple injuries, etc. In some cases, there simply isn’t enough liability insurance to cover the client’s damages. In that respect, how can Medicare require a set-aside when there isn’t even enough coverage to compensate the injured?

Since there is no specificity whether the settlement included any future medical expenses, then it would be impossible to determine whether a Medicare Set Aside Arrangement is necessary. However, if the case went to a jury and the jury specifically determined how much money was to be allocated for lost wages, past medical expenses, and future medical expenses, then it maybe MSA-appropriate. In the meantime, there is no Federal regulation mandating a Medicare Set Aside for any third party liability settlement, judgment or award.

If you would like to learn more about Medicare and Set-Aside Arrangements, please visit the following links:

Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set Aside Arrangements
Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor (MSPRC)
Continue reading →

Recently a man was found guilty of workers’ compensation fraud after a private investigator filmed him at the gym doing some serious weightlifting. Apparently he had a doctor’s note stating he could only lift 10 lbs. Well, this video proves him wrong. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a video is priceless!

Committing insurance fraud is against the law. This man’s deceit and dishonesty cost him three years of probation, nine months of suspended jail time, and over $31,000.00 in workers’ compensation benefits that he must pay back.

If, like so many of us, you post your everyday activities and updates on social media sites, step back, pause, and let’s think about this.

Increasingly, defense investigators and attorneys routinely check and monitor sites like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, GooglePlus, MySpace, etc., to easily compare claimants’ activities with their injury status. It’s obvious that postings like, “Biking the Boston Marathon course today!” and “Just finished a killer P90X workout!” are inconsistent with many claims of soft-tissue or orthopedic injury, for example.

Less obvious are more mundane posts: “Whew! Just mowed the lawn!” or “I’m so exhausted I just washed every window in this house!” You may have taken 4 hours and 2 painkillers to get through these tasks. Those details, while not post-worthy, would certainly affect the interpretation of your activity level. To a defense investigator or attorney, your posted activities may create an inaccurate picture of your capabilities. More important, without further explanation, they may seem to contradict your claim of injury.