Recent settlements
  • $1,560,000.00 Motor Vehicle Accident
  • $2,200,000.00 Wrongful Death
  • $1,250,000.00 Motorcycle Accident
Free Consultation • No fee unless succesful • we will travel to you
  • Top 100 Trail Lawyers
  • AVVO Car Accident 2015
  • AVVO Top Attorney Car Accident
  • American Academy of Trial Attorneys
  • 10 Best 2015
  • Super Lawyers
  • Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys
  • ASLA

By

As the holiday season winds down, many Massachusetts residents may be planning to begin the new year with the resolution of healthier eating – fewer starchy processed foods and more fresh fruits and vegetables. Usually, this would be a good plan.

Unfortunately, however, there have been several food contamination scares recently that could leave one wondering whether a new diet would indeed be best choice or whether eating “healthier” might end in a Massachusetts food poisoning lawsuit.

The Romaine Lettuce Recall

The United States Food & Drug Administration oversees the safety of the nation’s food supply. Often, this comes in the form of the recall of batch of foods (such as ground beef) processed within a few days time. With the recent romaine lettuce situation, however, the warning (first issued in late November) was much broader. Consumers were urged not eat any romaine lettuce and to throw out any such food product until more information was obtained by the FDA.

Continue reading

By

In a Cape Cod personal injury case, the plaintiff’s case is usually premised on a legal theory known as “negligence.” When a defendant is accused of negligence, the plaintiff is averring that he or she failed to behave in a reasonably prudent manner under the circumstances. In other words, the defendant is said to have breached a duty of care that was owed to the plaintiff, proximately causing some kind of damage to him or her.

Sometimes, however, a person who is hurt by another’s intentional – rather than negligent – act(s) may also seek compensation for injuries suffered to his or her person.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case considered on appeal by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the plaintiff sought compensation from the defendant transportation authority after one of the defendant’s bus drivers allegedly physically attacked him. The plaintiff’s complaint asserted claims for vicarious liability for the driver’s intentional actions and for direct negligence in the defendant’s hiring, training, and supervision of the employee. The defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that it was could not be held vicariously liable for the driver’s intentional tort and that the plaintiff had failed to adequately present his negligence case as required by the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act.

Continue reading

By

When someone is killed while working on another’s property, those left behind may wish to consider the possibility of filing a Cape Cod wrongful death lawsuit. Of course, the likelihood of success in such a case depends very much on the particular circumstances of the decedent’s passing.

If the personal representative of the decedent’s estate is able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant owed the decedent a legal duty, that this duty was breached, and that the decedent’s death was a proximate result of the defendant’s breach of duty, then the decedent’s estate may be entitled to substantial compensation for the decedent’s wrongful death.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent appellate case was the personal representative of the estate of a man who died after suffering a fall while making repairs to a three-story home that belonged to two of the defendants. The plaintiff also named a relative of one of the homeowners as a defendant; this individual was allegedly involved in the decision to hire the decedent to make the repairs that led to the decedent’s death. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the defendants did not supply the decedent with any safety equipment, nor did they apply for a building permit with regard to the work that was to be done. The decedent fell to his death when a ladder, lent to him by his brother, shifted.

Continue reading

By

In a Massachusetts criminal case, it is not unusual for a defendant to be ordered to pay restitution to the victim of his or her crime. If the defendant is placed on probation, timely payment of restitution may be a condition of the defendant not being incarcerated.

If the defendant does not abide by the terms of his or her probation, the trial court may revoke the defendant’s status as a probationer and order that he or she be placed in prison or county jail.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently under consideration by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court, the defendant was a woman who had been convicted on criminal charges (larceny and identity fraud) in 2008. She was sentenced to two years of probation and ordered to pay $28,200 in restitution, at rate of at least $100 per month. The defendant’s probation was extended several times, and her monthly restitution obligation was adjusted both upwards and downwards at various times. In February 2017, the defendant was still on probation and still owed over $14,000 in restitution.

Continue reading

By

When someone acts carelessly and causes harm to another, a negligence claim may lie under Massachusetts law. In some situations, the injured individual may have another claim as well. For example, the plaintiff in a recent case filed in federal court alleged that she had been the victim of negligence with regard to certain medical care (that she claimed she needed while a pre-trial detainee), while also asserting a civil rights claim under civil law. If you have questions of this nature, be sure to reach out to a Massachusetts personal injury attorney for answers.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent federal case was a pre-trial detainee at a correctional institute. She filed suit against the defendants, a doctor and the healthcare group that employed him, seeking compensation for injuries she allegedly suffered due to the worsening of a medical condition that she had had for some time. According to the plaintiff, she had psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and had been taking a certain medication prior to being lodged at the correctional institute (from which she was eventually released). She claimed that the defendants should have allowed her to continue taking that particular medication (rather than a combination of less expensive alternatives) and that their failure to do so amounted to a violation of her civil rights under federal law and also constituted negligence under Massachusetts state law.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff’s federal claim, holding that a reasonable jury could not find that there was deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s serious medical needs by the defendants. The court also dismissed (without prejudice) the plaintiff’s negligence claim after ruling that she did not have a viable claim under federal law. The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading

By

Cape Cod work injury cases can be more complicated than they first appear. Sometimes, there is “more to the story” all along, as in a situation in which an injured person may have several legal options resulting from his or her injury – a workers’ compensation claim against his or her employer, a product liability claim against the maker of a dangerous product that was used in the workplace, or perhaps a negligence action against a third party (as in a car accident lawsuit brought by a delivery driver hurt in a crash).

In other situations, the case grows more complex over time, as new developments give rise to additional litigation possibilities.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who was injured in 2013 while working on the premises of the defendant company. At the time, the plaintiff was a working for a temporary employment service, from whom she later collected workers’ compensation benefits due to her injury. After being hired as a full-time employee by the defendant, the plaintiff filed a third-party action against an employee of the defendant’s, whom she alleged negligently caused her injury. The plaintiff also named the defendant in the suit, pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Continue reading

By

There are many steps to receiving fair compensation for injuries suffered due to the negligence of others. The first step in a typical Cape Cod personal injury lawsuit is an investigation into the accident giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim. The case then proceeds through a phase called “discovery,” during which issues such as the defendant’s alleged breach of duty and the plaintiff’s medical treatment and expenses are explored.

If an amicable settlement cannot be reached between the parties, the next step is a trial. In the case of a jury trial, each party can ask the court to give the jury specific instructions, based on his or her view of the law that is applicable to the facts of the case. It is up to the trial court judge to decide which instructions will actually be given. If one side or the other is displeased with the judge’s instructions, an appeal may follow the jury’s verdict.

Facts of the Case

In a recent (unreported) case decided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant inn, seeking payment for personal injuries that she allegedly suffered when she fell on the defendant’s property and broke her arm. According to the plaintiff, the defendant’s negligence was to blame for her fall. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in the inn’s favor on the plaintiff’s negligence claim. The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading

By

To those injured in a Cape Cod car accident, the issue of whether or not a certain insurance company should provide coverage for an accident may seem like an “open and shut” case. Sometimes, this is true.

However, often it is not true. Many issues can arise in deciding whether coverage is available, and, ultimately, it is up to the courts to decide whether or not a particular insurance company has an obligation to pay a claim in a given case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the plaintiff was a man who was seriously injured in an automobile accident in 2014. At the time of the accident, the man was riding in a car owned and operated by another individual. The plaintiff entered into a settlement with the driver, who was at fault in the accident, for the full policy limits of her automobile liability insurance policy.

Continue reading

By

If you or someone in your family has suffered harm at the hands of a medical professional, such as a doctor or nurse, you should know your legal rights – and your obligations at trial. It is important to note that the plaintiff has the burden of proof in a medical negligence case, meaning that he or she has to provide proof of each element of the case sufficient to convince the jury beyond a preponderance of the evidence.

Seeking fair compensation in a Massachusetts medical malpractice lawsuit can be a complex task. As compared to a traditional tort case arising from, for instance, an auto accident, a medical negligence case may trigger more demanding procedural requirements, including the posting of a bond in some instances. As with other types of litigation, a person who believes that they may have a cause of action against a health care worker for medical malpractice should seek counsel as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

In a recent (unreported) case, the plaintiff was a man who sued the defendant hospital, averring that he had been the victim of an act of medical negligence. Apparently, the plaintiff did not have an attorney, either at trial or on appeal. This put him at a serious disadvantage, making it exceptionally difficult to win his case. He began his appeal by complaining to the court of appeals that the trial court had been error in declining to appoint counsel to represent him as he pursed monetary compensation against the defendant hospital. He also argued that the trial court should have reduced the amount of the bond required by Massachusetts General Laws ch. 231, § 60B. (His failure to post the required bond resulted in dismissal of his case.)

Continue reading

By

In a Cape Cod criminal case, the Commonwealth has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If police acted illegally during the arrest or investigation of the case, it may be possible to have certain evidence excluded at trial.

Even if a defendant is convicted, a case may be reviewed on appeal. It is not unheard of for an appellate court to disagree with a trial court as to whether the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently reviewed by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, a criminal defendant was convicted of several crimes involving the unlawful possession of a firearm. He sought reversal of his conviction on appeal, arguing, among other things, that police had violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting an illegal search and seizure and that there was insufficient evidence to support certain aspects of his conviction.

Continue reading