Published on:

It is always a difficult time when we can no longer take care of a loved one at home and it becomes time to have them live at a nursing home or other type of assisted care facility.  While this is not easy, there often comes a time when we must depend on the training, compassion, and professionalism of the management and staff to care for our loved ones and treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve, and to provide an appropriate level of medical attention when needed.  If the nursing home fails to do so and a patient is injured or killed, this may be the basis for a negligence lawsuit against a Boston area nursing home.

Recent Example of a Nursing Home Death in the Greater Boston Area

Boston personal injuryAccording to a recent news article from the Worcester Telegram, a nursing home in our area has been fined $140,000 in connection with the death of an 87-year-old resident. The decedent’s family has alleged his death was due to negligence on behalf of nursing home staff.  He died in UMass Memorial Hospital less than two days after he had gotten out of bed to the use the bathroom and fell and hit his head on a night table. It has further been alleged after he fell, a nursing aid told management decedent’s nurse requested nobody report the fall and simply put him back in bed.  There was no medical attention or evaluation provided for decedent following what ultimately turned out to be a fatal fall.  Continue reading

Published on:

Assumption of Risk as a Defense in Boston Personal Injury Cases Has Been Abolished

In some jurisdictions, a defendant in a personal injury case can plead what is known as an affirmative defense such as assumption of risk.  Generally speaking, an affirmative defense is a defense, which does not involve denying much of the allegations. Instead, a defendant will plead plaintiff knew of the risks when engaging in a certain activity or course of conduct, with full knowledge of the consequences, and chose to disregard or “assume” those risks.  By assuming the risks, plaintiff should not be able to fault defendant for engaging in any negligence so it should serve as a complete bar to recovery.

Massachusetts is a Mixed Comparative Negligence Jurisdiction

Boston personal injury lawyerAssumption of risk generally developed into what is known as a pure contributory negligence jurisdiction.   This means that if plaintiff contributed to the accident in anyway by being negligent in is or her own right, it would serve as a complete bar to recovery.  This could be as simple as a plaintiff walking down aisle in a big box retailer and slips on a wet floor while there was a caution wet sign.  In these jurisdictions, it could be argued plaintiff assumed the risk by walking on the floor anyway so the case should be dismissed. This may seem like a harsh result, but it is still the law in a handful of states and the District of Columbia.   Continue reading

Published on:

Boston is home to many colleges and universities, and while perhaps not as common in the past, joining a fraternity or sorority is still a popular thing to do for many new students. Despite being illegal, fraternity and sorority hazing still happens all the time and sometimes it results in serious injury or even death as we have seen in some cases that made big headlines. Not only is this a crime and a basis for being expelled from school, it is also a basis for filing a personal injury lawsuit in some cases under various theories of liability including the Massachusetts dram shop statute and negligence.

Massachusetts Dram Shop Law

Boston Personal InjuryThe dram shop law in our state is found in Chapter 138 of Section 69 of the Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.).  This statute states no alcoholic beverages can be sold or otherwise provided to anyone who is intoxicated.  It is also illegal to serve anyone alcohol who is under the age of 21 and as we know, most fraternity and sorority pledges subjected to hazing are under the age of majority. It should also be noted forcing someone to drink massive amounts of alcohol counts as delivery of alcohol under the Massachusetts dram shop law. Continue reading

Published on:

If a plaintiff accepts any money from an insurance company following an accident which was not their fault, an insurance company may offer money in exchange for signing a general release and waiver of further liability in connection with the accident. Victims of an accident  involving personal injury should not sign such a document or accept any money until first speaking with an experienced personal injury attorney to see if signing this document is really in their best injury, and in most case, signing the document is not.

Boston Personal InjuryIf a person in involved a serious car accident in Boston,  at-fault driver’s car insurance company will typically have a claims adjuster contact plaintiff, (or plaintiff’s family in cases where plaintiff is incapacitated) within 48-hours after the accident. These claims adjusters will generally act friendly, as if they are just trying to help. It is essential to understand they work for the insurer, not you.  This means they do not necessarily have the injured party’s best interest in mind. They are tasked with settling cases for as little money as possible so their employers can make more money.

Continue reading

Published on:

Liability waivers can be a major obstacle to Boston injury lawsuits, but they are not always impossible to overcome. These waivers are often thrust in front of participants of certain recreational activities to warn of potential injury or even death. If you sign one of these waivers, it may limit the circumstances under which you are entitled to seek compensation if you are later injured. However, Boston injury attorneys can explain these documents are not impenetrable. There may be a number of challenges on which your claim can prevail.

Courts in Massachusetts Often Enforce Boilerplate Waivers Signed by Activity Participants 

Boston Personal Injury Unlike some other states where signing general liability waivers signed before participation are deemed void for public policy, the courts in Massachusetts have been willing to enforce many of these so-called agreements. It will take an experienced injury lawyer to successfully challenge it.  Continue reading

Published on:

Personal injury lawsuits in Boston can involve many different types of physical and emotional damages, but those involving traumatic brain injury (TBI) are often among the most serious. In some ways, such claims are comparable to wrongful death cases because survivors find life will never be the same.

Boston personal injurySome traumatic brain injury patients  will no longer be able to speak, walk or take care of themselves in any significant way.  We have adults that are basically reduced to the functional capacity of infants, requiring a lifetime of care and adaptation to a new way of life for the plaintiff and his or her family members.  In some cases, the plaintiff will be able to make a partial or complete recovery, but even that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if not upwards of a million dollars. Continue reading

Published on:

Service of process is a legal procedure whereby a party to a lawsuit provides proper notice of a legal action involving another party (usually the defendant). One gives notice of a Boston personal injury lawsuit by delivering a set of court documents to the person who is being served.Boston Medical Malpractice

If a settlement can’t be reached with defendants, the case will be filed in the Suffolk Superior Court in in Boston’s Government Center area. The court will then issue a service packet, complete with a signed and stamped summons. Multiple copies will be provided if there are numerous defendants. Each defendant must then be served with the packet, including copies of the summons and complaint. If a defendant is not properly served within 90 days, per state rules, the defendant can move to dismiss for lack of service.

Take for example the 2012 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, wherein the appeals court affirmed the dismissal of a Massachusetts medical malpractice/ wrongful death claim, which came a full year after the complaint was originally filed against defendant physicians. Although plaintiff had sought two 90-day extensions one top of the original, (complications arose, as one defendant was out of the country), the court found the delay was inexcusable. The case was pending in Essex County Superior Court, while service was governed by Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j), requiring that such process be completed in 90 days. Justices ruled that while federal rules offer no specific time limit on service of process outside the U.S., case law has established reportedly that the amount of time for foreign service is not unlimited.

Continue reading

Published on:

The term “accident” gets thrown around a lot when describing injuries no one intentionally set out to cause. However, the reality is most personal injury cases are the direct result of a failure by someone else to use reasonable care when they had a duty to do so. This is referred to as “negligence,” and it’s grounds to obtain compensation if you’re injured.

Negligence however, is not the only tort.  A “tort” is the legal term for anything a defendant does to a plaintiff that results in some loss or damages for which plaintiff can seek “remedy” from defendant “tortfeasor,” or person who committed the tort.  In addition to negligence and negligence-based torts, there is also an entirely different type of tortious conduct known as intentional torts.

Boston Personal Injury Because we know that negligence essentially involves acting in an unreasonably careless manner so as to harm a plaintiff, intentional torts do not involve carelessness, but rather conduct characterized as intentional harm to plaintiff. So if you’re injured in a robbery or some other type of assault, you can sue your attacker for that too. (You can also, in some cases, sue the property owner where the crime occurred for negligent security, though that will be a negligence-based tort.)

Continue reading

Published on:

New advances in traumatic brain injury diagnostics can help in obtaining damages for those affected, according to a recently-released study.

Traumatic brain injury or “TBI” as it often called, is a term that encompass several very serious medical conditions involving trauma to the brain. While it is hard to think of any brain injury that permanently changes one’s cognitive abilities, motor control, speech patterns, and ability to function on a basic level as anything but catastrophic, there is a medical condition known as mild traumatic brain injury or “mTBI.”

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) in Boston Personal Injury Cases

Boston brain injury lawsuits According to the Brain Injury Association of America, mild traumatic brain injury is a somewhat misleading term. It does not mean that the damage to the plaintiff’s brain was mild, but rather the injury that caused the brain injury were less severe than typical.  In other words, a serious brain injury can result from a seemingly minor injury, and that injury can result in very severe traumatic brain injuries, but there was a low chance of suspecting brain injury from the less severe looking injury.  This in terms leads to denials by insurance companies and claims that the plaintiff is malingering or even faking the brain injury in order to get compensation. Continue reading

Published on:

When a plaintiff is on someone else’s property and is injured as a result of some dangerous condition on the property, the type of legal action likely to be filed is known as a premises liability case.  A Boston premises liability cases is plead under a theory of negligence and alleges that the defendant did not maintain the property in such as condition so as to make it reasonably safe for lawful entrants onto the land.premises liability

Standard of Care in Boston Premises Liability Cases

In Massachusetts, the law regarding the duty of due care owed to lawful occupants on the property was drastically altered as compared to what it was and still is in many other states in a 1973 cases captioned Wilbur M. Mounsey v. P. Ellard & Another (363 Mass. 693).   Prior to this case, the law required a distinction between invitees and licensees when determining if the landowner owed a duty of due care to maintain the property in a safe condition and warn lawful occupants of known, yet hidden, dangers. Continue reading