Boston Injury Lawyer Blog

In a recent case in Fall River, Massachusetts, Trial Judge Welch held that the victim of personal injury could not exclude the defendant's civil engineer expert testimony as to the methodology to determine the speed of the vehicles involved in a collision. The appellate court held that Judge Welch's decision to allow the testimony was "within the discretion of the trial judge and will be reversed only where it constitutes an abuse of discretion or error of law." This is notwithstanding the fact that the methodology was questionable, the defense "expert" had not viewed the vehicles, and his training was in civil engineering and had only taken a class in accident reconstruction. Further, the court found that even though the "treatise" with the critical equations was not put into evidence at trial.

Continue reading "Massachusetts Personal Injury Trial Expert's Testimony Limited" »

We often encourage clients to file their consumer cases in Small Claims Court. This is relatively easy in the local district courts and trials are quick. For many years, however, the limit for damages that could be claimed was $2,000. The exception was for property damage to motor vehicles. Now, in the Economic Development Bill, the legislature has raised the small claims damages limit to $7,000. The way the bill was drafted it will go into effect immediately.

While this will help consumers with claims up to $7,000, we feel that it may also help our personal injury clients who have claims that may fall into this category. The insurance companies often offer nominal monies for soft tissue claims such as neck and back injuries. With this new law, we may have some ammunition to fight back!

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.

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.