Cape Cod Injury Lawyer Blog

March 13, 2020

Per Massachusetts Highest Court, Decedent’s Signature on Covenant Not to Sue Barred Wrongful Death Claim by Statutory Beneficiaries

When someone is injured by another’s breach of the duty of due care, he or she has a right to file a negligence claim seeking compensation from the responsible party for his or her personal injuries. This includes payment for medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and other damages.

A Massachusetts wrongful death action may lie when a person is killed by another’s negligence. These suits are typically brought by the personal representative of the victim’s estate, acting on behalf of the beneficiaries enumerated under the state’s wrongful death statute, and, if successful, may result in the awarding of different elements of damages than would have been available in a personal injury lawsuit filed by the victim. The state’s highest court recently clarified the relationship between these two types of claims.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was the personal representative of a man who died in a scuba diving accident in 2014. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, the manufacturer of the decedent’s dry suit, the person who supplied the decedent’s diving equipment, and the dive leader, seeking to assert a wrongful death claim under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 229, § 2. The plaintiff settled her case against all defendants except the dive leader. Thereafter, the dive leader filed a motion for summary judgment, relying upon a release and covenant not to sue that the decedent signed prior to his death. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case from the intermediate appellate court on its own initiative.

March 10, 2020

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Answers Federal Appeals Court’s Question About State Wrongful Death Statute

By John C. Manoog III

More and more often, defendants in Cape Cod wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits are attempting to circumvent the traditional litigation process in cases charging them with negligent or reckless conduct. Of course, this tactic is more common in certain scenarios than in others. For example, in nursing home negligence cases, defendant care facilities often rely on clauses agreeing to arbitration – usually signed along with other paperwork when the patient was admitted to the nursing home – in their quest to avoid the courthouse. A recent case addressed the question of whether or not such an agreement was enforceable against the wrongful death beneficiaries of a deceased patient on whose behalf such an agreement had been signed.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently ruled upon by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the plaintiff was the personal representative of her mother’s estate. Prior to her mother’s admission into the defendant nursing home, the plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement on her mother’s behalf (the plaintiff had power of attorney for the mother). After the mother passed away in 2013 due to the defendant’s alleged negligence, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit in state court against the defendant, seeking monetary compensation for her mother’s death. The defendant insisted that the Federal Arbitration Act barred the plaintiff’s lawsuit.

The defendant filed suit in federal court. On appeal from a federal district court’s order compelling arbitration, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified two questions to the state’s highest court pursuant to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 1:03. One of those questions pertained to whether the Massachusetts wrongful death statute, which was codified at Massachusetts General Laws ch. 229, § 2, provided rights to statutory beneficiaries’ derivative of, or independent from, what would have been the decedent’s own cause of action.

February 27, 2020

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Affirms $2.5 Million Gross Negligence Verdict in Hiatal Hernia Medical Malpractice Case

By John C. Manoog III

Not every bad result in an operating room or emergency treatment center results in a finding of medical negligence. After all, some patients have medical conditions that may not respond to treatment, and some have diseases or injuries for which there is no cure.

However, if a particular patient could have been saved through the exercise of reasonable medical care but, instead, dies because the treating physician’s care fell below the standard of competency for doctors who regularly perform such procedures, a Cape Cod medical malpractice lawsuit may be possible. An attorney who practices in this area will need to review the facts of your loved one’s particular case in order to determine whether there is a reasonable chance for success on the merits before going forward with the case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was the surviving spouse and personal representative of a woman who died after undergoing surgery for treatment of a hiatal hernia in her diaphragm. The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice wrongful death lawsuit against the defendants, a doctor, a nurse, and the professional corporation for whom they worked, alleging that defendants’ treatment of the decedent fell below the standard of care for an average qualified surgeon and nurse and that this breach of care was a substantial factor in the decedent’s death. The defendants answered that the decedent died as a result of longstanding damage to her heart caused by her hiatal hernia rather than from any alleged negligence committed by them.

February 20, 2020

Pro Se Litigant’s Petition for Review Dismissed by Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

By John C. Manoog III

In a Cape Cod personal injury lawsuit, there are many laws, procedures, and rules that guide a case through the legal system. Experienced litigation attorneys are schooled in these matters and have systems in place to make sure that everything is filed in a timely and appropriate matter.

Those who chose to represent themselves – rather than hire a knowledgeable accident and injury attorney – are at a huge disadvantage in the court system. While a pro se litigant may be able to access some information about the court system online or at a law library, this limited knowledge is very rarely enough to result in a successful outcome in the case. Much more frequently, the plaintiff ends up having his or her case dismissed – often on procedural grounds – effectively forfeiting any chance of obtaining a verdict against the opposing party.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case heard by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the record was sparse, but it appeared that the plaintiff was a man who had attempted to represent himself pro se in a personal injury lawsuit asserting a negligence claim against the defendant grocery store. The district court apparently dismissed the plaintiff’s cause of action. Rather than file a traditional appeal from the district court’s ruling, the plaintiff filed a petition in the county court, relying upon Massachusetts General Laws ch. 211, § 3 and seeking review of certain aspects of the district court’s ruling in his personal injury case.

February 14, 2020

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Reverses Summary Judgment on Battery Claim in Medical Malpractice Case

By John C. Manoog III

Most Cape Cod medical malpractice lawsuits are based on the principles of negligence law. To prove negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant healthcare provider breached the applicable standard of care and that this breach was the proximate cause of the damages for which he or she seeks monetary compensation.

In addition to negligence-based malpractice allegations, some plaintiffs’ malpractices cases may involve other types of civil wrongs, such as battery or intentional infliction of emotional distress. It is possible that the plaintiff in such a case might be successful on some, but not all, of his or her claims. Ultimately, it is up to the trial court judge and the jury (if the case gets that far) to determine these issues.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs included the administratrix of a deceased cancer patient and a relative of the patient. According to the plaintiff’s medical malpractice complaint, the defendant medical providers had committed several acts of medical malpractice upon the deceased patient prior to her death. The plaintiffs sought compensation for these instances of medical negligence as well as for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

February 6, 2020

What Massachusetts Residents Need to Know About Automobile Insurance

By John C. Manoog III

It is no secret that having the right automobile accident insurance is important, but many people do not truly understand the type of insurance that they need or even what coverage they currently have. Unfortunately, some drivers do not learn that they have inadequate coverage until they have been involved in a Cape Cod car accident. By then, of course, it is too late to get the appropriate coverage for that particular accident. Knowing what coverage you have, what additional coverage may be advisable, and how different types of coverage work is very important. Below, we discuss several different types of insurance coverage that can protect a family in the event of a crash.

“No-Fault” Does Not Always Mean No Lawsuit

Massachusetts is a “no-fault” state for purposes of automobile accident insurance. Under no-fault laws, drivers are required to purchase personal injury protection (PIP) insurance that will cover a certain dollar amount of medical expenses and a portion of lost wages resulting from an accident, regardless of who caused the collision. However, “no-fault” does not mean that no one can ever be held legally liable for injuries caused by an accident, nor does it mean that all of the insured driver’s expenses are covered under PIP. While each party must rely on his or her own insurance to pay minor expenses associated with a car accident, those who meet a certain threshold established by state statute have the right to file a traditional negligence lawsuit seeking full compensation from the responsible party.

Drivers are also required to purchase liability insurance to cover damages in the event that they are found to be at fault in an accident and the other driver (or a passenger) is able to get past the no-fault threshold and proceed toward traditional tort liability. Currently, the minimum coverage for bodily injury to others is $20,000 per person or $40,000 per accident. There is also a compulsory requirement for property damage (payable when the insured driver causes damages to someone else’s vehicle by causing an accident); the mandatory minimum is $5000 at present.

January 29, 2020

Fire Risk From Faulty Products is an Ongoing Concern in Massachusetts and Across the Country

By John C. Manoog III

When a defective product causes injury or death to a consumer, the consumer (or his or her family) may be able to recover a settlement or judgment against the company that made the product. In some situations, the wholesaler and or seller may also be liable. There are several different legal theories upon which the consumer may rely on in a Cape Cod products liability lawsuit. These theories include (but are not necessarily limited to) design defect, manufacturing defect, strict liability, failure to warn, and breach of warranty. It is important that a person who has been hurt by a dangerous product get legal advice in a timely fashion, lest his or her claim become time-barred under state products liability laws.

Battery Banks Recalled

Most of us rely heavily on our cellphones these days, and a dead battery can disrupt not only our entertainment but also our ability to communicate and, when we are traveling, navigate. Portable power banks have become very popular, as we often need additional battery power to get us through a long day or a weekend trip. Unfortunately, power banks are not without risk. Recently, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a recall of certain 10,000 mAh power banks because the banks’ battery may overheat and cause a fire. Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled products immediately.

Interestingly, these banks are not associated with a particular brand. Rather, they may contain a company logo on the front and or back of the product. This is because they were distributed as promotional items at meetings or other events rather than sold directly to the public. If you have suffered a fire or a burn caused by one of these banks or another lithium-ion battery product, you may be able to seek compensation via a products liability claim against the manufacturer of the device.

January 22, 2020

Foster Family’s Claim Against State Child Services Department Was Not Barred by Massachusetts Governmental Tort Act

By John C. Manoog III

Maintaining a personal injury or wrongful death claim against a governmental entity can be difficult. In fact, there was once a time in which such claims were not allowed under the law. Nowadays, however, a Cape Cod personal injury lawsuit against the government may be possible in some situations, although it can be expected that the government will attempt to get the case dismissed, if at all possible. Even if the claim survives a motion to dismiss, there may be limitations on the amount of damages available to the plaintiff for his or her injuries. There may also be other procedural hurdles, including the requirement of formal notice within a relatively short period after the accident.

Facts of the Case

In a recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case, the plaintiffs were a mother, father, and minor child who sought compensation from the defendant, a state child services department, for injuries suffered by the minor child due sexual assault by a foster child whom the family had taken in. Although the placement was supposed to be short-term, the defendant left the foster child (a 12-year-old boy) in the plaintiff foster parents’ care for several months. Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs – but known by the defendant – the foster child had a history of both having been sexually abused himself and also being the perpetrator of sexual abuse.

After the minor child (a 5-year-old girl) disclosed that the foster child had sexually assaulted her, the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant, claiming that the defendant had been negligent in placing the foster child with them and that the defendant had breached a contractual agreement under which the defendant had agreed to provide the plaintiffs with “sufficient information” about any proposed foster child to enable them to knowledgeably determine whether to accept the child.

January 16, 2020

Court Denies Relief to Massachusetts Woman Who Sought Late Appeal of Workers’ Compensation Agreement

By John C. Manoog III

Cape Cod work injuries are common. In order to receive the benefits to which he or she is entitled, the injured employee must take several proactive steps. First and foremost, the worker must give the employee notice of the accident, injury, or work-related illness. A formal claim must also be filed within a set period of time. Having an attorney handle this aspect of the case is wise. After all, the employer and its insurance company are routinely engaged in such matters, and a worker who may be filing a claim for the first time can be at a substantial disadvantage.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case considered by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the plaintiff was a woman who had filed a workers’ compensation claim some years prior. Her claim eventually proceeded to a hearing before the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents, which approved a “lump sum agreement” in 2016. Almost two years later, the plaintiff filed a motion asking that she be granted an extension of time in which to file an appeal from the agreement previously approved by the department. An administrative law judge denied the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time in which to appeal, as well as her motion for reconsideration.

The plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal in the Massachusetts Appeals Court, seeking review of the administrative law judge’s orders denying her motions. The court (through a single justice) treated the plaintiff’s “notice of appeal” as a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal and denied the plaintiff’s request. The plaintiff then filed documents in a county court, seeking review pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws ch. 211, § 3. The plaintiff’s efforts to have her case reviewed by that tribunal were likewise unsuccessful.

January 10, 2020

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Says Search of Vehicle After Exit Order Was Wrongful

By John C. Manoog III

A great number of Cape Cod criminal cases revolve around the issue of whether evidence that the government seeks to introduce at the trial of the case was legally obtained. The defendant may argue that a particular search was violative of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. If the court agrees that police violated the defendant’s constitutional rights with regard to a certain search, the evidence obtained through that illegal search must be excluded from the jury’s consideration because it is the “fruit” of the “poisonous tree.” Without the evidence that can no longer be submitted at trial, the government’s case against the defendant may be much weaker, or perhaps non-existent.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the defendant was arrested on a drug trafficking charge. He filed a motion to suppress evidence found in his vehicle by police, insisting that the evidence was the fruit of an illegal search. According to the defendant, the exit order given to him by the police officer who stopped him was illegal, and thus the evidence found by the officer after the defendant stepped out of the vehicle should have been excluded. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, and he appealed to the intermediate appellate court. That court reversed the lower tribunal’s denial of the defendant’s motion. The Commonwealth sought further review from the state’s highest court.

Decision of the Court

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that exit order was not lawfully issued and that, therefore, the evidence obtained by the search should have been suppressed as the fruit of the poisonous tree.