Massachusetts Personal Injury Blog

'How long do I have to sue in Massachuetts for injuries from a car accident?'

ChristopherFEarley — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:50:47 -0400

Generally, you have three years from the date of the accident to bring a lawsuit in Massachusetts for injuries sustained in an auto accident. There are exceptions however, such as a two year statute of limitations for claims stemming from accidents involving MBTA vehicles.

Also, if you live in Massachusetts and your auto accident was in a different state, then that state's laws apply. Not all states have a three year statute of limitations like Massachusetts does.

'I was injured in a car accident in Massachusetts that was caused by a drunk driver. What are my rights?

ChristopherFEarley — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:57:45 -0400

If a drunk driver causes a Massachusetts auto accident, the injury victim can bring claims against multiple parties. Obviously, a claim can be brought against the drunk driver's insurance company. But, there are also less obvious parties that may be held responsible. For example, if the drunk driver was over-served at a bar, club, restaurant, or even private party, then a dram shop case may be possible against the establishment, and the people, that over-served the drunk driver.

These cases are very fact-intensive because you need to show that whoever over-served the drunk driver knew or should have known that he/she was visibly intoxicated, and continued to serve that person, before they can be held liable.

Often, many depositions have to be taken in order to establish fault in these cases, apart from the fault of the driver who caused the accident.

The Role of 'Notice' in Slip and Fall Claims in Massachusetts

ChristopherFEarley — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:13:24 -0400

The success of slip and fall cases in Massachusetts hinge on the element of "notice." Property owners in Massachusetts are required to keep their property in a reasonably safe condition free from defects. These owners must take reasonable measures to insure their property is safe for those lawfully on the property. In order to establish negligence on the part of a property owner, you need to show the owner had notice of the dangerous defect that caused your slip and fall injuries.

Notice can be established in one of three ways. First, you can try to show the owner created the dangerous condition which led to your slip and fall accident. Second, perhaps you can show the owner knew of the dangerous defect but failed to take reasonable steps to remedy it. Third and finally, the element of notice can be satisfied by showing the owner should have known of the dangerous condition, but failed to recognize it and correct it.

As you know from reading this blog, slip and falls, as well as trip and fall cases are tough to win in Massachusetts. But, if you can establish the element of notice - in one of the three above-mentioned ways - then negligence on the part of the property owner may be established.

"I Was in a Car Accident in Massachusetts. Can I Make a Claim for Pain and Suffering?"

ChristopherFEarley — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:56:03 -0400

That depends on the amount of your medical bills. As long as your "reasonable and necessary" medical bills stemming from the car accident are at least $2000.00, then you can bring a claim for pain and suffering against the at-fault driver's insurance company.

There are exceptions to the $2000.00 requirement. Examples are injuries involving broken bones, scarring, or disfigurement, or, a hearing or vision loss, stemming from the accident.

Massachusetts Car Accidents and Lost Wages

ChristopherFEarley — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:22:05 -0400

If you were involved in a car crash in Massachusetts, the insurance company that insures the car you were in at the time of the accident will pay for your lost wages. The lost wage claim is part of your PIP (Personal Injury Protection), first-party claim with the insurance company. This is part of the no-fault insurance system that we have here in Massachusetts.

The insurance company - for the car you were in at the time of the accident - will pay for up to 75% of your lost wages. Remember that PIP payments will not exceed $8000.00. Good luck.

A Brief Introduction About Who We Are

ChristopherFEarley — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:41:59 -0400

Thank you for visiting our blog.

I started my practice in February 2005 in Charlestown, Massachusetts and decided to dedicate my career to representing the injured. Since that time, my practice has quickly grown. I now have an office in downtown Boston, and a little over one year ago, I hired my first associate, David Green, Esq. , who handles both litigation cases, as well as workers' compensation cases. We also have a great secretary named Tamara who speaks Spanish and assists us with all of our Spanish-speaking clients.

We are extremely proud of the fact that many of our clients have referred their family and friends to our firm because we have earned their trust and confidence. Most of all, we are proud of the personal attention we provide to all of our clients, no matter how small, or how big, the case.

Give us a call and tell us about your case. We are here to help you.

"I Fell At Work? Can I Sue?"

ChristopherFEarley — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:06:27 -0400

Maybe.

In Massachusetts, you cannot sue your employer if you slipped and fell and injured yourself at work. But, you can however make a claim for Massachusetts workers compensation benefits with your employer's insurance company.

However, if your slip and fall accident was caused by the negligence of someone other than your employer, than you may be able to sue that third-party for your injuries. In example would be a delivery driver injured on the steps of a home he is delivering a product to, or a cook who slips and falls on a wet and slippery floor that was caused by an outside cleaning company. You get the picture.

Therefore, you cannot sue your employer for a slip and fall accident, but you can sue a third-party that may have caused, or contributed to your accident.

Our office handles all types of premises liability cases, including slip and fall claims, and we would he happy to provide to you a free consultation to discuss what your rights may be.

Great Article on Tort Reform

ChristopherFEarley — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:12:30 -0400

From the Los Angeles Times comes a wonderful piece on tort reform, and how we need to shift our focus to the real facts and statistics, and away from the half-truths that perpetuate tort reform efforts. Here it is:

"Every circus needs a sideshow, which must be why every time the issue of rising medical costs gets debated, politicians start clamoring for "tort reform."

You know the argument: Disgruntled patients, goaded on by unscrupulous lawyers, file frivolous malpractice lawsuits and walk off with millions of dollars in undeserved awards granted by teary-eyed jurors. Doctors respond by practicing "defensive medicine," ordering lots of unnecessary tests to cover their behinds. Bingo! Medical costs hit the stratosphere.

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) boiled this view down to its essentials in a recent Republican weekly radio address, calling for the elimination of "frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals."

Tort reform has lots of fans. The public's on board because it's easy to hate lawyers. Doctors and hospitals love it because they hate to get sued. Insurance companies love it because the less money they pay out to plaintiffs, the more they get to keep. Republicans love it because trial lawyers give three-quarters of their political donations to Democrats. And Democrats pay it lip service because they're afraid to look like lawyer lovers.

Any issue featuring so many interest groups cantering about on hobbyhorses is an issue where the truth goes to die. So let's try to resuscitate the patient with a shot of reality.

First: "Frivolous" litigation. Lawyers define frivolous lawsuits as those that, from first to last, don't have a leg to stand on. Just because a lawsuit ends up a loser doesn't mean it's frivolous.

That's especially true of malpractice cases, which can bristle with complexity. Often the only way to know if an injury resulted from professional error is to use a lawsuit to pry loose the facts.

"It can be hard to tell until late in the litigation if there's really no claim," Michelle Mello, an expert on malpractice at Harvard’s School of Public Health, told me. An extensive study she helped conduct of malpractice case files showed that frivolous cases, as usually defined, are rare -- and those that do get brought usually don't yield a payment to the plaintiff.

The obverse is a bigger problem -- injury cases where the victim doesn't get a dime. These often involve lower-income or unemployed patients, says David M. Studdert, Mello’s research partner, now at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

The truth is that medical liability isn't a big driver of health costs overall. Studdert estimates the cost of malpractice litigation, in court and through defensive medicine, at roughly 2% to 3% of all U.S. healthcare spending -- in other words, no more than $50 billion out of a total annual bill of $1.7 trillion. (You'll hear estimates as high as $200 billion from outfits like the American Medical Assn., which is the antithesis of an objective source.)

It's fair to say that some reform is needed in our tort system. The trick is to make sure that the benefits of any changes go to the right people -- the patients. That hasn't been the result of the preferred remedy for malpractice lawsuits, which is to hit trial lawyers in the pocketbook. Cap their fees or jury awards (of which they customarily take a percentage), the theory goes, and they'll knock off the ambulance-chasing.

This model of tort reform comes, alas, from California. In 1975, a sharp run-up in doctors' premiums stampeded the Legislature into enacting draconian limits on malpractice cases. Under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, or MICRA, noneconomic damages -- that's "pain and suffering" -- were capped at $250,000. Lawyers' fees were also limited. Many other states followed with similar laws.

Who got helped by MICRA? Not consumers. California's healthcare costs aren't measurably lower than other states'. In fact, they're measurably higher.

Not the victims of medical error, at least not fairly: A Rand Corp. study in 2004 found that the cap fell disproportionately on "those with small economic losses but great damage to the plaintiff's quality of life."

Women were big losers, possibly because their claims often result from obstetrics and gynecology procedures that affect fertility or sexual lifestyle, conditions which aren't amenable to economic analysis. Such patients find it hard to even bring cases, for lawyers know the long odds of winning a judgment big enough to cover costs.

Doctors and hospitals? Premiums in California continued to rise sharply for 10 years after MICRA. Rates finally plateaued in the late '80s, but the reason may have been 1988’s Proposition 103, which rolled back casualty insurance rates.

By the way, the MICRA cap isn't indexed to inflation. So even if $250,000 was the right limit in 1975, it's the equivalent of only about $62,000 now.

MICRA's big winners are insurers. The average loss ratio for California malpractice carriers last year -- the portion of their premiums they paid out or reserved for claims -- was 16.43%, according to the state Department of Insurance. In other words, they paid out less than 17 cents of every dollar they took in.

How great a business is malpractice insurance nationwide? At American Physicians Capital (an insurer active in the Midwest), claims were falling so fast in 2007 that its chief executive publicly compared his underemployed claims managers to "the Maytag repairman." The next time you find yourself nodding in assent while some politician carries on about tort reform, remember that its benefits will go to characters like this.

That doesn't mean that no changes are needed, only that there are many ways to counter defensive medicine and the costs and inequities of the U.S. litigation system without shutting the courtroom door to malpractice cases.

Clearer professional guidelines for diagnostic imaging would give doctors legal cover for skipping an MRI or CAT scan that isn't clinically indicated. Creating special courts or appointing judges to specialize in malpractice cases would help deserving victims get compensated without the grotesque overhead of full-scale trials. So would a "no-fault" system to compensate those with medical injuries regardless of their source, paired with an objective process for disciplining error-prone doctors or hospitals.

Some of these options are being tried around the country, and are promising. But none of them has the pizazz of railing about lawyers and "frivolous" lawsuits. "

Great New Blog for the Injured

ChristopherFEarley — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:51:31 -0400

Jeffrey Catalano, who is a great Boston trial lawyer, and who I refer cases to, has a great blog called Victim Rights Blog and I encourage all my readers to go check it out. There is some great content, as Jeffrey tirelessly champions for victims' rights in a time when they are often ignored.

"Can My Son/Daughter Bring a Claim for Personal Injuries in Massachusetts?"

ChristopherFEarley — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:56:27 -0400

Yes.

If a minor is injured in an accident and has a valid personal injury claim, it is the usually the mother or father of the minor that is the one bringing the claim. I represent minors who have been injured in accidents and when I meet with them for the first time, it is the parent or "next friend" whose name is actually listed on the contingency fee agreement, as well as any other paperwork that is signed.

Also, in Massachusetts, upon settling a personal injury claim for a minor, a prudent lawyer always seeks to obtain court approval for the settlement. Many judges today want to be sure that the settlement proceeds that belong to the minor will not be spent by the parents. Judges usually like to see a structured settlement or other similar vehicle that protects the minor' s money until the child reaches the age of majority. Without such safeguard to protect the child's money, many judges will refuse to approve the settlement.