Verdicts & Settlements

$2,400,000.00
Motorcycle accident at construction site

$1,800,000.00
Child burned in basement explosion

$1,675,000.00
Wrongful death claim against a truck company

$350,000.00
Rear-end car accident with back injury

$260,000.00
Rear-end car accident with neck injury

$255,000.00
Trip and fall on defective brick walkway at fast food restaurant suffering a broken arm, elbow, and two teeth.

$250,000.00
Motorcycle accident with leg injury

$250,000.00
Injuries sustained from cutting down a tree on a friend’s property

$240,000.00
Post-traumatic stress disorder from viewing crane collapse at construction site

$195,000.00
Slip and fall on snow and ice

$190,000.00
Soy milk contamination

$165,000.00
Injuries sustained in MVA resulting in surgery

$155,000.00
Pedestrian police officer struck by drunk driver

$150,000.00
MVA claim for 8 yr old boy against a truck company

$137,500.00
Horse riding accident with multiple injuries

$125,000.00
Tractor trailer accident with minor cognitive injuries

$120,000.00
MVA involving vehicle operated by hospital employee

$112,500.00
Fell through hole in floor of construction site suffering knee injury

$100,000.00
Motor vehicle accident resulting in surgery

$100,000.00
Wife struck at mailbox by husband turning car into driveway

$100,000.00
Trip and fall due to raised asphalt in crosswalk of grocery store

$100,000.00
Police officer injured in fall from unguarded landing

$100,000.00
Police officer injured elbow breaking up bar fight

$100,000.00
Police officer injured in rear-end motor vehicle accident by intoxicated driver

$80,000.00
Dog attack resulting in surgery and permanent scarring

$75,000.00
Passenger on coach bus injured after falling from seat and suffering wrist injury

$75,000.00
Child suffered windpipe laceration requiring surgery after swallowing small toy

$65,000.00
Dog attack resulting in surgery and permanent scarring

$60,000.00
Trip and fall over cables running across floor of restaurant

$500,000.00
Death following Achilles tendon surgery
(Workers' Compensation)

$325,000.00
Gas worker sustained back injury requiring multiple surgeries (Workers' Compensation)

$300,000.00
Certified nurse’s aide sustained back injury requiring multiple surgeries (Workers' Comp)

$200,000.00
Work-related heart attack
(Workers' Compensation)

$200,000.00
Electrical shock and burns (plus third party recovery) (Workers' Compensation)

$150,000.00
Farmer suffered broken ankle
(Workers' Compensation)

$150,000.00
Work-related motor vehicle accident with shoulder injury (Workers' Compensation)

$125,000.00
Grocery clerk suffered back strain
(Workers' Compensation)

$125,000.00
Clerk who was sexually harassed by supervisor
(Workers' Compensation)

$125,000.00
PTSD following gas explosion
(Workers' Compensation)

$125,000.00
Bus driver developed PTSD after hitting pedestrian (Workers' Compensation)

$125,000.00
Registered nurse with latex allergy
(Workers' Compensation)

$125,000.00
Fall aggravated pre-existing multiple sclerosis
(Workers' Compensation)

$112,500.00
Utility worker injured shoulder
(Workers' Compensation)

$112,500.00
Fall aggravated pre-existing arthritis
(Workers' Compensation)

$ 65,000.00
Clerk developed bilateral CTS from repetitive keyboard use (Workers' Compensation)

$ 65,000.00
Back injury from repetitive lifting
(Workers' Compensation)

$ 50,000.00
Shoulder injury from slip and fall outside of work (Workers' Compensation)

Published on:

In many instances in which a person suffers a debilitating injury, the person will be unable to do any meaningful work and therefore cannot earn a living. In such cases, the person may file for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (SSDI). SSDI is not always granted, however, even if the claimant provides ample evidence of his or her injury if conflicting evidence is presented regarding the claimant’s lack of disability. In a recent case ruled on by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the court discussed what weight should be given to conflicting evidence when evaluating entitlement to SSDI. If you were injured and can no longer work, it is prudent to consult a seasoned Massachusetts social security disability attorney to discuss your case and whether you may be able to recover benefits.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Background

It is reported that the claimant sustained an injury to his shoulder while working as an order picker at a warehouse. He subsequently filed a disability claim due to complex regional pain syndrome/reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome. His application was denied, and a subsequent reconsideration was denied. He then requested a hearing with an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision, which became the final decision, and the claimant appealed. On appeal, the claimant argued that the ALJ committed an error by failing to give the claimant’s treating care provider controlling weight. Instead, the court adopted the findings of the physician who conducted an independent medical examination and opined the claimant did not have a physical disability.

Weight of the Evidence of Disability

On appeal, the court stated that under the treating source rule of the Social Security Administration, an ALJ should give greater weight to the opinions of claimants’ treating physicians, as they are the people most likely to be able to provide detailed pictures of the claimant’s disability. Further, the rule notes that a treating physician may have medical evidence that cannot be obtained solely from an independent medical examination. The court further explained that a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight unless it is not supported by medically acceptable techniques, or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In any civil lawsuit, the parties will engage in discovery during which they will exchange documents and depose witnesses to attempt to obtain facts in support of their position. Not all materials are discoverable, however, as certain information is protected by privilege. In a recent product liability case in which it is alleged that medication caused birth defects,  the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts discussed when a plaintiff can be compelled to disclose information relied upon by and obtained from a consulting expert. If you were or a loved one suffered injuries due to  a defective product you should speak with a trusted Massachusetts personal injury attorney about your potential claims.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant setting forth product liability claims alleging that  drug manufactured by the defendant and prescribed to pregnant women caused birth defects in their children. In part, the plaintiffs relied on a report by an expert third-party witness, in support of their argument that the defendant’s drug caused birth defects. The defendants sought to depose the third-party witness, and sought documents regarding the relationship between the plaintiffs’ attorneys and the third-party witness via discovery. Plaintiffs and the third-party witness both filed motions for a protective order arguing that the documents sought were protected by the work-product doctrine. The court ultimately denied the motions, finding that the documents were not privileged.

Published on:

When a person is injured by a national corporation, pursuing damages against the corporation can be complicated. For example, the injured person must show that the court can exercise jurisdiction over the corporation and that the corporation can be held liable under the claims asserted, otherwise the injured person’s claims may fail. This was demonstrated in a recent case in which a plaintiff sought to hold a national drug company responsible for harm caused by a contrast agent administered during an MRI. If you sustained injuries due to the negligence of a corporation, it is prudent to meet with a skillful Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss what damages you may be able to recover.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent an MRI, during which he was given an injection of a gadolinium-based contrast agent, that was manufactured by the defendant. Following the MRI, the plaintiff suffered gadolinium retention in several organs, which caused him to suffer emotional and physical injuries. He filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging the defendant failed to warn the patient adequately of the risks associated with gadolinium. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, in part, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by federal law. The court granted the defendant’s motion but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

Exercising Personal Jurisdiction Over an Out of State Corporation

A court can exercise general or specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In the subject case, the plaintiff conceded that the court did not have general personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Thus, the court’s analysis focused on whether specific personal jurisdiction could properly be exercised over the defendant.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In Massachusetts, the duty a property owner owes to visitors of the property depends in part on the status of the visitor. For example, property owners owe a minimal duty to trespassers as opposed to those lawfully permitted to enter the property. There is an exception for child trespassers, however, who are owed greater protection from harm. Recently, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Essex, discussed what duties property owners owe child trespassers, in a case in which a child was harmed after unlawfully entering a property. If you or your child were injured on another person’s property it is prudent to meet with a seasoned Massachusetts personal injury attorney as soon as possible to discuss your potential causes of action.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Background

Reportedly, the defendant owned an apartment complex that abutted railroad tracks. A fence separated the defendant’s property from the tracks, but there were large gaps and holes in the fence that adults and children used to pass through the property. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was aware that people used the holes and gaps in the fence to access the adjacent property but did not repair the fence.

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a thirteen-year-old girl, walked through the fence and over the railroad tracks with a friend to go to a nearby plaza to go shopping. On the way back from their shopping trip, the friend was struck by a train. The plaintiff attempted to perform CPR on the friend, but the friend died from her injuries.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Car accidents are common in Massachusetts, and people involved in car accidents often sustain injuries and property damage. Thus, in many cases, a person who incurs damages due to a car accident will pursue claims against one of the drivers involved in the accident. There are numerous categories of damages a person can recover following a car accident, including damages for pain and suffering. Recently, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts discussed what a plaintiff must prove to recover damages for pain and suffering following a car accident, under Massachusetts law. If you suffered harm due to a car accident, it is advisable to speak with a diligent Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding what damages you may be able to recover from the party that caused your harm.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a vehicle owned by a Vermont resident, when they were involved in an accident with a driver from Massachusetts. The plaintiff reportedly sustained injuries in the accident and subsequently asserted claims against the Massachusetts driver, the Vermont driver, the insurance company of each driver, and his own insurance company. Subsequently, each of the plaintiff’s claims was dismissed,with the exception of the negligence claims against each driver. A jury found that the Massachusetts driver was negligent but that her negligence was not the cause of the plaintiff’s alleged harm and, therefore, entered judgment on her behalf. The plaintiff appealed.

Recovering Damages for Pain and Suffering Following a Car Accident

On appeal, the court noted that during the trial, the plaintiff expressed that he was only seeking damages for pain and suffering from the Massachusetts driver. As such, he was required to prove his injuries met one of the enumerated threshold requirements set forth under Massachusetts law. Specifically, in Massachusetts, a plaintiff can only recover damages for pain and suffering in a lawsuit arising out of a motor vehicle collision in certain circumstances, which includes when the plaintiff’s medical expenses exceed $2,000.00.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In Massachusetts, property owners generally have a duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition for any lawful visitors. There are exceptions to the general rule, however, such as when the harm presented by a dangerous condition is open and obvious. Recently, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts discussed the open and obvious exception to a property owners’ duty to warn of hazardous conditions, in a case in which a child was injured while using a zip line. If you or your child were injured on someone else’s property, it is wise to meet with a seasoned Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss what you must prove to establish liability.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the older brother of the minor plaintiff spent the night at the home of the defendants. The next day, the minor plaintiff, who was six years old, accompanied his father to the home of the defendants to pick up his brother. When they arrived at the defendants’ home, the minor plaintiff noted a zip line in the backyard.

Reportedly, the minor plaintiff asked his father if he could use the zip line. The father lifted the minor plaintiff onto the zip line and guided him for a few feet and then let him go. The minor plaintiff fell shortly after that, sustaining multiple fractures. The minor plaintiff’s mother instituted a negligence claim against the defendants on behalf of the minor plaintiff, arguing that the zip line was unreasonably dangerous. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the court affirmed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Under Massachusetts law, even if a party obtains a successful verdict at trial, the other side has the right to appeal. As with all civil pleadings, however, if a party fails to file a notice of appeal within the time required by law, it may result in a dismissal of the appeal. In a recent personal injury case decided by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, the court explained what constitutes excusable neglect that would permit a party to file a late notice of appeal. If you suffered personal injuries due to someone else’s negligence, it is in your best interest to meet with a Massachusetts personal injury attorney adept at helping injured parties recover compensation to discuss your case.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff suffered hip injuries while working at a site owned by the defendant.  He subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The court denied the motion. Pursuant to the rules of appellate procedure, the defendant had thirty days to file a notice of appeal. The defendant did not file a notice, however, until eight days after the deadline had passed. The court permitted the late notice of appeal, after which the plaintiff appealed the order allowing late notice.

Excusable Neglect Permitting Late Filing

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party appealing a civil case is required to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of when the court enters a judgment or order denying a motion for a new trial. If a party misses this deadline, the court can only permit a motion for leave to file a late notice of an appeal if the party demonstrates excusable neglect. Excusable neglect is only meant to apply in extraordinary or unique circumstances, and not merely a delay caused by everyday oversight. Rather, excusable neglect should only be a valid explanation when it is required to remedy emergency situations.

Continue reading →

Published on:

When a person dies in a truck accident, the person’s loved ones will often pursue a wrongful death claim against the party that caused the crash. As commercial truck drivers have duties and obligations that go beyond the understanding of the average layperson, in many truck accident cases, the parties will rely on experts to offer testimony regarding whether the truck driver breached the duty of care. There are limits as to what an expert can testify to, however, and as shown in a recent wrongful death case decided by a Massachusetts appellate court, if the expert exceeds his or her permitted scope, his or her testimony may be stricken. If you lost a loved one due to someone else’s negligence, you should consult a skilled Massachusetts personal injury attorney to discuss what damages you may be able to recover.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent was riding a motorcycle when he was struck by a commercial truck entering the roadway. The truck was driven by the defendant driver and owned by the defendant trucking company. The decedent ultimately died from his injuries, and the personal representative of his estate filed a wrongful death suit against the defendants. Following a trial, a jury found in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently moved for a new trial, arguing, in part, that the trial court erred in excluding portions of the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony.

Permissible Scope of Expert Testimony

In Massachusetts, a trial court judge has ample discretion regarding what expert testimony he or she admits. Thus, an abuse of discretion will only be found in cases in which, after considering any relevant factors, the judge’s decision is beyond the range of reasonable alternatives and constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In most instances, when a person suffers harm because of another party’s negligence, the victim may pursue damages. In certain cases, however, regardless of whether a party acted negligently, the injured person may not be able to recover compensation because the negligent party is immune from liability. For example, under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (the Act), public employers are exempt from liability in certain circumstances. Recently, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts analyzed whether the Act protects a public employer from liability for inadequate staffing, in a case arising out of a train accident. If you were injured due to the negligence of a person or entity, it is prudent to meet with a capable Massachusetts personal injury attorney regarding your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff fell off a platform at a train station. A train owned by the defendant transportation authority subsequently struck the plaintiff, and he suffered serious injuries. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, arguing in part that the defendant negligently failed to staff the station with a customer service agent or a safety inspector on the day of the plaintiff’s accident. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under the Act. The court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed.

Public Employer Immunity Under the Act

Under the Act, a public employer is immune from all claims that arise out of the performance or exercise of a discretionary duty or function, or the failure to exercise such a duty or function. In the subject case, the plaintiff did not dispute the fact that the defendant was a public employer as defined by the Act. Thus, the issue analyzed by the court was whether it was within the defendant’s discretion to determine which course of conduct to undertake and, if so, whether it was the kind of discretion for which the Act provided immunity. The court stated that if a regulation, statute, or established practice dictates a party must take a certain course of action, a defendant’s behavior will not be protected by the discretionary function exception of the Act.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Under Massachusetts law, if a person is injured in the course of his or her employment during an activity that arises out of his or her job, the person may be able to recover workers’ compensation benefits. Thus, if a person is injured traveling for his or her job, the person can file a workers’ compensation claim. Recently, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, analyzed when traveling constitutes an act taken in furtherance of a business so as to warrant workers’ compensation benefits for injuries sustained during travel, in a case in which the court denied benefits to the estate of a worker who died while traveling. If you were injured while traveling for work, you should meet with a capable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to discuss whether your employer may owe you workers’ compensation benefits.

Facts Regarding the Decedent’s Harm

It is alleged that the decedent, who was the principal of a family-owned business, died in a car accident in February 2014. The decedent’s widow subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. An administrative judge determined that the decedent was not killed during a trip that was undertaken in the furtherance of his company’s business and denied the decedent’s wife’s claim. The review board affirmed, after which the decedent’s wife appealed.

When Travel is a Work-Related Activity

The Massachusetts workers’ compensation acts covers injuries that arise out of work and occur in the course of work. Additionally, injuries suffered while traveling for the business affairs of an employer, that arise out of an ordinary risk of traveling are covered as well. In determining whether the risk of the trip was a personal risk or a risk of the employment, the court must assess whether the employment caused the employee to embark on the journey, or whether the trip was undertaken for other reasons. Continue reading →