Published on: |

Massachusetts employees who are hurt while working are often eligible to recover compensation. There are certain prerequisites that must be met for harm to be compensable, however, and an employee that cannot demonstrate an injury is work-related may be denied benefits. Recently, a Massachusetts court addressed the issue of whether harm is compensable if neither the injury-inducing accident nor the signing of the employment contract occurred in the Commonwealth. If you work for a Massachusetts company and were hurt at work, it is in your best interest to speak to a seasoned Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to determine whether you may be owed damages.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff responded to the defendant’s advertisement for truck drivers that as posted in a Massachusetts newspaper. He then attended training at the defendant’s headquarters in Pennsylvania and signed an employment contract while he was there. Once he began working for the defendant, he delivered cargo throughout the northeastern states, including Massachusetts. He also made over one hundred trips to or from Massachusetts, which was more time than he spent in any other state.

Allegedly, the plaintiff suffered an injury while delivering cargo in Maine. He filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). An administrative judge found that he suffered work-related harm but dismissed his claim regardless on the basis that Massachusetts was not the place where the plaintiff was hired or injured, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction. The case went through numerous rounds of appeals and was ultimately presented to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

While most negligence cases are ultimately resolved based upon the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, some cases are dismissed on procedural grounds. Even if a person’s claims are dismissed due to the failure to comply with the statutory rules, however, relief may be available via a motion to vacate in some circumstances, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts negligence case. If you were harmed by another party’s reckless acts, it is critical to retain an accomplished Massachusetts personal injury attorney who will fight to help you protect your rights.

Factual History

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant condominium association following an accident in which she sustained injuries. The plaintiff’s claims were ultimately dismissed via a judgment from the court. The plaintiff then filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which the defendant opposed. The court granted the motion, however, and the defendant appealed.

Vacating a Judgment Dismissing a Claim

Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure (the Rules) allow a party to move to vacate a judgment if certain parameters are met. Specifically, a judgment may be vacated due to excusable neglect, mistake or inadvertence, or because of newly discovered evidence. It may also be overturned due to fraud or misrepresentation, or because it is void or has been discharged. Finally, the Rules allow for a court to vacate a judgment for any other reason that justifies relief from the judgment. An appellate court will not set aside a trial court ruling on a motion to vacate absent an abuse of discretion.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

It is not uncommon for a business to hire a company to clean and perform maintenance on the business premises. In such instances, a dispute may arise as to which party is liable if a person subsequently suffers injuries in a slip and fall accident caused by an improperly cleaned spill. This was illustrated in a recent slip and fall case in Massachusetts, in which the court ultimately ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements needed to prove the liability of the third-party cleaning company. If you suffered injuries in a slip and fall accident, it is advisable to discuss your harm with a trusted Massachusetts personal injury attorney to assess whether you may be able to pursue claims for damages.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was shopping in the defendant grocery store when she slipped and fell on a puddle, which caused her to sustain injuries. The puddle was caused by melted ice that was bagged and given to customers to keep perishable items cold. The plaintiff saw a child drop a bag of ice, which created the puddle, prior to her fall. She also observed an employee of the defendant grocery store attempting to clean up the puddle.

Allegedly, the defendant grocery store contracted with the defendant cleaner to clean the premises and provide maintenance services, including cleaning up spills. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against both defendants, alleging negligence claims. The defendant cleaner filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that, as a matter of law, it could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s harm.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

When people apply for Social Security Disability benefits, they will typically undergo examinations that result in the issuance of residual capacity forms (RFC), which describe their abilities to work and the extent to which they are deemed disabled. If an administrative law judge does not grant an RFC proper weight or renders a decision that is inconsistent with it, it can adversely impact a claimant’s outcome. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed how RFCs weigh into administrative law judge’s decisions in social security disability benefits claims, in a matter in which the claimant argued her claim was unjustly denied. If you cannot work due to a disability, you may be able to recover social security benefits, and it is advisable to speak with a trusted Massachusetts Social Security Disability attorney about your options.

The Claimant’s Case

It is reported that the claimant, who is 52-years-old, has a high school education and became disabled in October 2016. She was unable to engage in any substantially gainful activity since she was injured in a fall accident, which is when her disability began. Prior to becoming disabled, she worked as a respiratory therapist, which is listed as a medium exertion and skilled position.

Allegedly, in July 2017, the claimant filed an application seeking social security disability benefits. Based on numerous examinations, she was found to be capable of sedentary work, and in consideration of her age, RFC, and education level, it was concluded that she could engage in other work. Thus, she was deemed not disabled and denied benefits. She appealed. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Many hospitals receive federal funding. Thus, if an employee of a federally funded hospital commits medical malpractice, any claims for damages must typically comply with the requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). For example, the plaintiff must set forth the evidence in support of the claim that a federal employee committed malpractice as well as the sum certain that constitutes the plaintiff’s damages. In a recent medical malpractice case filed in a Massachusetts federal court, the court explained what factual information is sufficient to set forth a sum certain as required to proceed with a claim. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to negligent medical care, it is advisable to speak to a diligent Massachusetts personal injury attorney to evaluate what claims you may be able to pursue against your provider.

Factual Background

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent, who suffered from an irregular heartbeat, was a patient at the defendant hospital, which was federally funded. The doctors employed by the hospital failed to provide the decedent with a proper evaluation, diagnosis, or care, and she ultimately passed away due to her negligent care. The decedent was in her mid-twenties at the time of her death and left behind a young son and her parents, who filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendant pursuant to the FTCA.

Allegedly, the United States was then substituted as the defendant, due to the fact that the defendant hospital was federally funded. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff failed to set forth a sum certain in the administrative claim she filed prior to filing the lawsuit, as required under the FTCA.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Many students find college challenging and struggle to adapt and succeed. Tragically, some students feel as if they are unable to go on and ultimately die due to suicide. Whether a school that is aware of a student’s mental health struggles can be deemed liable for the student’s death by suicide was the topic of a recent Massachusetts opinion in which the court declined to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s negligence claims. If you or your child suffered injuries while attending a college or university, you might be owed damages, and it is advisable to speak to a Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Struggles and Untimely Death

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent began attending school at the defendant college when she was sixteen. Shortly after she arrived on campus, she advised a mental health counselor that she had a history of suicidal ideation and self-harm. Throughout her years of attendance, several reports were made regarding concern for her safety, and wellness checks were conducted. The counseling department was advised on several occasions that the decedent was abusing substances as well.

Allegedly, the defendant was also advised that the decedent was sexually assaulted, engaged in acts of self-harm and that she wrote a play in which the lead character ended her own life. The defendant never advised the decedent’s parents of any of the foregoing. The decedent was found dead one morning, and the manner of her death was determined to be suicide. The plaintiffs, the decedent’s parents, filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging negligence and other claims. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing it did not owe the decedent a duty.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

People typically rely on their health care providers to be competent and provide them with adequate care. Sadly, though, many doctors fail to exercise sound judgment when treating their patients, and their negligence causes considerable harm. People injured by medical malpractice can recover damages, though, if they can prove that their physicians deviated from the standard of care and that the departure ultimately caused their harm. What a plaintiff must prove to establish causation in a medical malpractice case was the topic of a recent Massachusetts opinion, in a case in which the plaintiff alleged the defendant’s shortcomings led to his wife’s death. If you or a loved one suffered harm because of inadequate medical care, it is smart to meet with a seasoned Massachusetts personal injury lawyer to assess your possible claims.

The Decedent’s Care

Reportedly, the decedent treated with the defendants for symptoms of perimenopause. She was prescribed a progesterone cream but was not advised of the risks associated with using it. The defendant admitted she did not advise the decedent that the cream increased the likelihood of developing blood clots because she did not believe that to be a risk. The decedent used the cream for three years and then began complaining of shortness of breath. She was ultimately diagnosed with a pulmonary embolism and chronic pulmonary hypertension.

Allegedly, she underwent surgery to remove the blood clots from her lungs, but it was unsuccessful. She was then prescribed medication to address the clots, but that did not work either. She died four years later from complications of the disease when she was forty-three years old. Prior to her death, she instituted a lawsuit against the defendants, alleging their negligence caused her harm. The case proceeded to trial, and while the jury found that the defendants were negligent in certain respects, it did not believe the negligence was the proximate cause of the decedent’s harm. Following a verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Typically, when one car crashes into another, it is due to the negligence of the second driver, and the second driver should be held liable for any harm caused by the collision. In some cases, though, an accident is brought about by a sudden, unavoidable event, and no one will be deemed legally responsible for causing it. This was illustrated in the recent Massachusetts car accident case in which the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant were dismissed despite the fact that the defendant’s vehicle struck the plaintiff at a high rate of speed, causing her to sustain severe injuries. If you were injured in a car crash, it is prudent to meet with a Massachusetts personal injury attorney to determine whether you may be able to assert a claim for damages in a civil lawsuit.

The Subject Accident

It is alleged that the defendant was driving an SUV on a Massachusetts highway, with her friend sitting in the passenger seat when she suddenly lost consciousness. The friend attempted to steer the vehicle to the side of the road but was unable to regain control. The defendant proceeded to speed up and slow down, all while unconscious. She ultimately struck the plaintiff’s vehicle at a high rate of speed, causing the plaintiff to suffer severe injuries. The defendant, who did not regain consciousness after the accident, was injured as well and was airlifted to a nearby hospital.

Reportedly, during the defendant’s admission, it was revealed that she had a benign brain tumor that caused her to suffer a seizure. The plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against the defendant setting forth a negligence claim. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that she could not be deemed negligent because she suffered a sudden medical emergency. The court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, after which she appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In Massachusetts, the law requires any person wishing to pursue a medical malpractice action to provide a sufficient offer of proof of liability at the onset of the claim.  Recently, in Moalli v. Genesis Healthcare, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts overturning a trial court’s dismissal of a claim due to insufficient proof, explaining that proof offered will be sufficient if it shows a likelihood that the defendant’s negligence caused the harm alleged.  If you or a loved one was injured due to negligent medical care, you should consult a knowledgeable Massachusetts personal injury attorney to analyze the facts of your case and assess whether you may be able to recover damages.

Facts Surrounding the Decedent’s Illness

Allegedly, the decedent was admitted to the defendant rehabilitation facility following a hospitalization for pneumonia. He was 87 years old at the time of his admission. He was placed in a room with an individual suffering from a Clostridium Difficile (C. Diff) infection. The decedent’s family members were not informed of the infection. Additionally, the decedent’s daughter observed the staff members performing their duties without gloves or gowns. Twelve days after he was admitted the decedent was transferred to another room. He began reporting loose stools and had an elevated white cell count, which was not revealed to the decedent’s family. He was ultimately discharged to an assisted living facility where he continued to be treated for loose stools. Approximately one month after his admission to the defendant facility he was diagnosed with C. Diff. He passed away twelve days later while in hospice. Colitis was listed as one of the significant factors contributing to his death. The plaintiffs, decedent’s family, filed a medical malpractice suit against the defendant facility. The plaintiffs’ complaint was ultimately dismissed for failure to provide sufficient offer of proof of liability. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under Massachusetts law, entities that offer means of transportation to the public are known as common carriers. In addition to the general duty of reasonable care imposed on most companies and individuals, the law imposes a duty on common carriers to provide safe transportation for their passengers. As such, if a person is injured while traveling with a common carrier, it may be deemed liable for the person’s harm. Recently, a Massachusetts court addressed the question of whether a company that uses ridesharing applications to connect drivers and passengers is considered a common carrier and, if so, whether it can be held liable for harm caused by drivers using its application. If you were hurt while using a ridesharing service, you may be able to recover damages and should meet with a knowledgeable Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss what claims you may be able to pursue.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff used the defendant company’s ridesharing application to hire the defendant driver to transport her to her home in Massachusetts. Instead of taking her home, however, the defendant driver drove the plaintiff to a secluded parking lot where he raped her. The defendant driver was subsequently charged with rape but absconded to another country prior to his criminal trial. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit, alleging negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, and vicarious liability claims against the defendant company, and assault and battery, and other claims against the defendant driver. The defendant company filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in part that it was not a common carrier and could not be deemed liable for the acts of the driver.

Common Carrier Liability in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, common carriers are companies that operate any motor vehicle on public roads for the transportation of passengers who choose to purchase the carrier’s services. The goal of common carriers is to provide an affordable means of transportation. Thus, common carriers are obligated by law to provide safe transport for their passengers. The Massachusetts courts have found that this duty includes protecting passengers from harm caused by the intentional torts that are committed by the carrier’s own agents.

Continue reading →