Published on: |

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.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Texting while driving is a serious offense. On September 30, 2010, Massachusetts enacted a texting while driving law prohibiting all drivers from composing, sending, or reading text messages while driving. (M.G.L. c. 90 § 13B) At the same time, Massachusetts enacted an even stricter law prohibiting teenagers under the age of 18 from using any type of cell phone whatsoever while driving, including a hands-free phone or other mobile electronic device. (M.G.L. c. 90 § 8M)

In a nut shell, this means that (1) all drivers, regardless of age, are prohibited from texting while driving, and (2) all drivers under 18 are prohibited from using a cell phone or hands-free device whatsoever.Yesterday, an 18-year old Haverhill teenager, who was 17 at the time of the accident, was convicted of texting while driving. It was reported that the teenager had sent 193 texts that day, a couple texts shortly before the accident, and then several more after the accident. The teenager was distracted from his driving, crossed the center line, and struck another vehicle head-on, killing a man and seriously injuring a woman. The teenager was charged with a host of traffic violations, including the new texting while driving violation, as well as a very serious charge of vehicle homicide. (M.G.L. c. 24 § 24G)

The teenager was sentenced to serve one year of jail time, conduct 40 hours of community service, and lost his driver’s license for 15 years. This teenage won’t be able to drive again until he is about 32 years old.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s report which includes motor vehicle accidents and fatalities statistics, there were 33,808 fatal car crashes in 2009.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 5,474 (16%) of fatal car crashes in 2009 were attributable to driver distraction. More specifically, 995 (18%) of driver-distracted fatal accidents involved a cell phone.

“Distraction is a specific type of inattention from the driving task to focus on some other activity instead.” (See NHTSA) This includes a myriad of distractions such as “cell phones, eating, talking to passengers, looking outside, etc… fatigue, physical conditions of the driver, and emotional conditions of the driver.” (See NHTSA)

Astonishingly, AAA conducted a study of 1,000 teens in 2007 and found that texting while driving is just as dangerous as drinking and driving with 46% of teens admitting to texting while driving.

Many of us recognize the dangers of distracted driving but are adamant that it won’t happen to me or that my teenager won’t do that. Think proactively and make a change. Remember that you are the biggest influence on your teenager and they are watching you as you talk or text while driving. This Haverhill case decision clearly shows the ramifications of texting while driving.

If you would like to learn more about this topic, please click on the link to view ABC News “Mass. Teen Aaron Deveau Faces Prison in Landmark Texting Homicide Case.”
Continue reading →

Published on: |

The third week of May is National Dog Bite Prevention Week. As Massachusetts dog bite injury attorneys we thought you may be interested in the following facts. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.), approximately 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year. Of that amount, more than 2.3 million are children under the age of 12.

According to the Insurance Information Institute, insurance companies paid out $478.9 million in dog bite claims last year; and $412.6 million in 2010. That averages out to approximately $30,000 per claim.

Massachusetts has a Dog Bite Statute (M.G.L. c. 140 § 155) that allows an individual bitten or attacked by a dog to pursue a claim against the homeowner’s insurance policy of the owner or keeper of the dog. This also includes any property damage.The Massachusetts Dog Bite Statute is a strict liability statute because a dog bite is an inherently dangerous act. Strict liability means that the dog owner is automatically liable, regardless of fault (even if the dog never bit anyone before). One caveat to this rule is whether the injured person was trespassing or was teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog (i.e. the victim was bitten as a result of his/her own negligence). If the victim is a child under the age of seven, then the caveat is set aside, and the dog owner is automatically liable.

According to M.G.L. c. 140 § 147A, Massachusetts allows any city or town to enact its own ordinances and by-laws regarding the regulation of dogs. This includes leash laws. For instance, the City of Fall River has an ordinance requiring all dogs be leashed, whether on your own property, private property, or public property, including parks, playgrounds, or cemeteries.

In addition, Massachusetts has a state-wide law that requires all dogs to be licensed beginning at the age of six months. Licensing occurs annually. In order for a dog to be licensed, updated rabies vaccination records must also be provided. However, each city or town may have promulgated an earlier time frame for licensing, such as Fall River, which requires the licensing of dogs at four months, rather than the state’s six month rule.

Cited Resources:

City of Fall River Massachusetts; Dog Licenses and the Leash Law, fallriverma.org Continue reading →

Published on: |

On April 12, 2012, Attorney James K. Meehan attended the annual National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) Workers’ Compensation Panel Meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Over several days, the group, comprising workers’ compensation attorneys nationwide, addressed issues confronting professional athletes injured while playing. This year’s meeting included lengthy discussions regarding the new collective bargaining agreement entered into by the player’s union and the National Football League.

Discussions also involved the National Football League Players Association’s (NFLPA) recent lawsuit against the National Football League for concussions. The lawsuit alleges that the league failed to disclose to players the severity of their head injuries and failed to provide adequate treatment. In addition, claims are being made that the teams forced players back into action prematurely before full recovery from their concussions. The player’s union is bringing this civil lawsuit in addition to workers’ compensation claims being made for individual players.

Attorney Meehan has been a member of the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) Workers’ Compensation Panel for almost two decades. Over that time, he has represented numerous professional athletes who sustained premature career ending injuries. He has also represented members of the Boston Red Sox, New England Revolution, and a ballerina for the Boston Ballet Company.

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Law is set forth in M.G.L. c.152. The Act provides disability benefits and medical coverage for most injuries occurring in the workplace. Types of injuries include neck injuries, back injuries, knee injuries, shoulder injuries, psychiatric/stress-related injuries, repetitive trauma injuries, and neurological disorders. Commonly, in the case of an injured professional athlete, the insurance company denies the injury and a claim is filed at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Industrial Accidents. At this agency, the workers’ compensation claim is heard by an Administrative Judge. If benefits are ordered, then the player can receive weekly benefit checks, medical benefits, loss of function/scarring benefits, and vocational rehabilitation or job retraining benefits. The amount and length of benefits generally depends upon the severity of the injury and amount of pre-injury pay.

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFkWTGKNLT8
 

Quite often a Massachusetts’ workers’ compensation case is resolved by way of a lump sum settlement. Generally, acceptance of a lump sum settlement of a workers’ compensation case closes out the right to receive a weekly disability benefit but leaves open medical benefits and vocational rehabilitation or job retraining benefits for two years. In the case of a permanently disabling injury, a claimant may also be entitled to social security disability benefits.
Continue reading →