Boston Injury Lawyer Blog

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, sitting in Boston, Massachusetts, has had a busy week handing down significant case law. The Law Office of Neil Burns reported earlier regarding slip and fall injuries on ice and snow, and the change in the law in evaluating those cases. Also this week, the Court changed how the medical bills of a personal injury plaintiff, someone injured a car accident, for example, are submitted into evidence at trial.

Thus, the actual medical bills, not the substantially lower bills actually paid by the insurer, are admissible at trial. The Court also found, however, that the defendant - who allegedly caused the car accident in which the plaintiff was injured - could still submit evidence regarding the range of payments accepted by medical providers as payment in full for such services.

This is because the Court found that Massachusetts General Laws "Section 79G states unambiguously that medical bills are admissible to establish the reasonable value of services rendered where the services are related to the injury for which the claim was made," Justice Margot G. Botsford wrote on behalf of the Court. Nonetheless, the Court also found that §79G clearly permitted the defendant to present evidence of the range of payments that a provider accepts for the particular services received by the plaintiff.

It was noted that the practical reality is that in smaller cases with lower medical bills, not much will change whereas a defendant would not likely elect to incur the additional expense of calling such witness for trial. But in cases where medical bills are substantial, the impact of the Court's ruling could be significant. For in those cases where the defendant elects to offer testimony regarding the range of payments accepted by medical providers as payment in full for such services, it will be up to the jury to decide what constitutes a reasonable charge for the medical service provided.

Massachusetts has recently seen a rash of Boston area car accidents involving Massachusetts State Police officers. Thus, the State Police Association of Massachusetts -- the troopers' union -- is calling for action: they want more personnel on major highways during peak hours, primarily Friday and Saturday nights. The attorneys at the Boston Law Office of Neil Burns want all Boston and Massachusetts residents to drive with caution as we see firsthand the results of personal injuries resulting from car accidents and those injured in car accidents.

Recently, a Massachusetts state trooper was recently killed in Mansfield, Massachusetts and two more state troopers were injured during car accidents in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Taunton, Massachusetts. These crashes are thus increasing road, traffic, and automobile safety concerns in recent weeks and prompting Massachusetts to take action.

The move is getting a lot of attention and for good reason. Across the country, the number of officers killed in traffic accidents is up 35 percent this year.

Continue reading "Massachusetts State Troopers Try to Improve Safety" »

Boston area residents should be role models when it comes to bicycle safety. Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 85: Section 11B, requires all persons 16 and under to wear an approved bicycle helmet while operating their bike on any public way in Massachusetts. The Law says nothing regarding adults and those over 16, however. The Boston Law Office of Neil Burns represents individuals injured in bicycle accidents and knows the importance of wearing a helmet in promoting bicycle safety.

The importance of wearing a bicycle helmet, regardless of age, cannot be overstated. More than 90 percent of the 714 bicyclists killed in 2008 were not wearing helmets, according the Institute for Highway Safety. So even though there is no law, per se, requiring helmet use for those older than 16, safety is the real issue.

Continue reading "Bicycle Helmet Safety" »

Just today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, sitting in Boston, has handed down new law regarding slip and fall injuries involving snow and ice. It used to be that the duty of care owed by landowners to lawful visitors on their property did not include any obligation to remove snow and ice that had accumulated naturally. Now, however, that has changed. The attorneys at the Boston Law Office of Neil Burns know the importance of staying up-to-date and current regarding applicable laws affecting our clients.

There is no longer a distinction for land owners regarding snow and ice. We now have a standard rule of reasonable care for all property owners--commercial and residential.

The case arose from an accident at a department store. The plaintiff parked in a handicapped parking place, passed a pile of snow which had been plowed, and did his shopping. On his way back to his car, the plaintiff fell on ice which had either fallen from the pile or accumulated as a result of melting from the pile, later re-freezing. The trial court ruled that the accumulation was natural and granted summary judgment for the defendant store and landscaping company. The Appeals Court affirmed.

Continue reading "New Slip and Fall Injury Law " »

In a case handed down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the Court took employers off the hook for the responsibility of their employees while off site. Essentially, the Court said that in the "comings and goings" of an employee, the employer is not responsible. We see many such cases: there is insufficient motor vehicle insurance, so the injured party needs to file a claim against third parties. The case involved a pedestrian injured by a driver who had been drinking with his boss prior to driving home. The driver was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol.

In this case, Lev verses Beverly Enterprises, the employee, Ahern, and his boss were having drinks, discussing work. After having approximately two drinks, Ahern left the bar to drive home. Unfortunately, Ahern's motor vehicle struck Mr. Lev as he was crossing a street - suffering two broken legs and other serious injuries. The plaintiff, Lev, alleged that Ahern was acting within the scope of his employment because it was essentially a work meeting, notwithstanding the fact that it was "off campus" and that, therefore, the company was responsible for Ahern's negligent driving. Unfortunately for Ahern, the trial judge, Merita Hopkins, sided with the employer and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed stating that the drive from the bar home was "not an essential part of the employer's mission."

A case recently decided in Boston and upheld by the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found no merit in an employee's personal injury lawsuit, where claim she should be able to sue her employer because at the time of her injury she was working for a wholly-owned subsidiary of her employer. The Boston attorneys at the Law Office of Neil Burns have successfully resolved cases for employees injured at work through no fault of their when liability rests with a party other than the employer. We can evaluate your work injury claim to determine if this option is available to you.

In deciding that under Massachusetts law an employer cannot be held personal liable when an employee's personal injury occurs in the scope of their employment, the Court looked whether an employment relationship existed, including whether the entity directed and controlled the employee's activities.

In the case, a flight attendant suffered severe back injuries when the plane came to an abrupt stop on the runway. She underwent multiple spinal surgeries but was unable to return to work as a flight attendant. She agreed to accept a lump sum in lieu of future workers' compensation payments. The agreement listed her employer as "Song Airlines/Delta (in dispute)." She also sued Delta for her personal injuries, arguing that Song Airlines, not Delta, was her employer.

The U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment for Delta, finding that it was immune from personal liability because the claimant was a "loaned servant" when her injuries occurred. Because an employment relationship existed, the Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for the claimant's injuries. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, upholding the lower court's decision.

Boston automobile drivers face many tough road conditions while driving in Massachusetts. If your car is damaged in an automobile accident because of someone else's negligence, first try to work things out with your automobile insurance company. But if you cannot get the relief you seek or feel you are entitled to, then you may consider bringing your property damage (or car accident damage) claim before the Massachusetts small claims court.

The Boston Law Office of Neil Burns wants you to know that a dispute regarding damage to your car is sometimes best handled in Massachusetts small claims court. But, if you are injured in a car accident, you should seek advice from an attorney because your personal injury claim will most likely not be able to be filed in a Massachusetts small claims court.

T

Continue reading "Massachusetts Small Claims Court For Property Damage" »