Law Talk Blog

Budget Cuts Hit Massachusetts Trial Courts

John Sheehan — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:08:07 +0000

As reported by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (Trial Court Announces Layoffs and Court Closings) last week, the Massachusetts Trial Court announced that it will cut between 250 and 300 court jobs and closed almost 14 courthouses.

These cuts are in addition to several hundred court employees who agreed to take early retirement. In addition to the layoffs, early retirement and court closings, court personnel and judges will have to take a five day unpaid furlough.

The budget cuts, undoubtedly, will impact litigants waiting for their day in court. Trials will be delayed.

Many more litigants may opt for private Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) such as arbitration or mediation as a way to obtain an expedited resolution of their legal dispute.

Source: Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

Duck Boat Crashes in Seven Car Pile Up

John Sheehan — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:00:23 +0000

The Boston Globe reports (Duck Boat, Seven Other Vehicles in Boston Crash) that a Duck Boat crashed with seven other cars last Friday (July 16, 2010) afternoon. The accident happened near Hatch Shell on Storrow Drive in Boston, MA. Several injured people were taken to nearby hospitals.

This was the second car crash in one week involving a Duck Boat. The Boston Globe reported (Woman Heading to Wedding Is Passenger in Crash Involving Duck Boat) only days before (July 13, 2010), a car collided with a Duck Boat on Court Street in downtown Boston as the car changed lanes attempting to pass the Duck Boat on the congested, narrow Court Street.

If you or a loved on has been injured in a car accident in Massachusetts, call Attorney John Sheehan at 866-979-4113 for a free, no obligation consultation.

Source: Boston Globe

Tort Lawyers Fight for Justice

John Sheehan — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:45:51 +0000

Tort Lawyers Fight for Justice

Last week, John Stossel ran an Op Ed in the Boston Herald (and other newspapers throughout the country) titled, But It’s Injustice For Almost All. The Op Ed was nothing more than a baseless attack on trial lawyers and personal injury lawyers.

Stossel begins his Op Ed by charging that tort lawyers lie. He then goes on to rant and rave against the evils of tort lawyers and personal injury lawyers without, of course, any facts to back up his baseless, slash and burn diatribe.

When it comes to personal injury lawsuits, it appears that Stossel’s message is more, “Do as I say not as I do.”

As reported by the Huffington Post (John StosselIs A Pathological Liar - 5/30/2006), Stossel “sued a wrestler $200,000 for slapping him during an interview.” What a hypocrite!

As a proud tort lawyer, I work hard to fight for justice for ordinary working people who are hurt at work or seriously injured due to another person’s negligence.

Tort lawyers’ work on behalf of consumers has secured, among other things: seatbelts, safe and reliable airbags, safe and reliable infant car seats, safe and reliable anti-lock car brakes and automobile stability control systems. Their work helped ban toxic lead paint cancer causing asbestos.

The shrill ranting of the John Stossels of the world remind me of the now infamous Texas Congressman who, when questioning the head of BP during a recent Congressional hearing, actually apologized for the government’s efforts to hold BP accountable to compensate Gulf residents and businesses for losses caused by BP’s recklessness.

I’ll let John Stossel and his crowd stand shoulder to shoulder with BP and big moneyed special interests.

As a proud tort lawyer and personal injury lawyer, I’m on the side of the little guy and gal who, without tort lawyers, would be shut out and have no chance for justice.

Source: Boston Herald and Huffington Post.

Falling Concrete Injures Worker

John Sheehan — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:42:41 +0000

Falling Concrete Injures Worker

As reported by The Salem News recently, a worker at a courthouse construction site in Salem, Massachusetts was very seriously injured when he was struck by a concrete block that fell several stories above. OSHA is investigating the accident.

In a construction accident like this, oftentimes a third-party, such as the General Contractor or a Sub-Contractor, may be legally responsible for the workers’ injury.

Under federal regulations enforced by OSHA, the General Contractor has a non-delegable duty for the safety of all workers on its jobsite.

A worker injured on a construction site accident has a right to receive workers compensation benefits which, generally, pays a percentage of his lost wages and medical costs. In addition, a worker injured in a construction site accident may have a legal right to compensation from a third-party such as the General Contractor or a Sub-Contractor.

If you have been injured in a construction site accident or any type of work accident in Massachusetts, contact Attorney John J. Sheehan for a free, no obligation consultation. Call 866-979-4113.

Source: The Salem News

Distracted Driving Could Be Deadly

John Sheehan — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:36:38 +0000

As reported by the Boston Herald on 7/9/2010 (Judge Orders Accused In Hit-And-Run Off The Road), a Lawrence, Massachusetts nursing home worker was reaching for her cell while driving when she ran over a toddler playing in a driveway. Luckily, the child was not killed but suffered multiple, severe injuries including a shattered jaw.

The driver, who fled the scene, was later arrested. A Lawrence District Court Judge ordered not to drive while criminal charges are pending.

This tragic accident is an example of the potential deadly dangers caused by distracted driving.

A week earlier, Governor Patrick signed a law banning texting while driving.

Even though the driver in the Lawrence case was not texting while driving, it’s an example of the danger of distracted driving.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are three common types of distractions:

Visual - taking your eyes off the road
Manual - taking your hands off the wheel
Cognitive - taking your mind off what you’re doing.

According to U.S. Government statistics, approximately 20% of all car crashes in 2008 were caused by some type of distracted driving (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - NHTSA). Almost 6,000 people died nationwide from distracted driving, and almost 500,000 people were injured by distracted driving in 2008 according to the NHTSA.

If you have been injured in a car accident in Massachusetts, contact Attorney John J. Sheehan for a free, no obligation consultation. Call 866-979-4113.

Source: Boston Herald, USDOT and NHTSA.

It’s Time to Strengthen OSHA

John Sheehan — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:08:43 +0000

As reported by the National Safety Counsel, OSHA’s Assistant Secretary of Labor, Dr. David Michaels, recently testified before Congress in support of the Protecting America’s Workers Act (H.R. 2067).

“Clearly, OSHA can never put a price on a worker’s life. It is vital that OSHA be empowered to send a stronger message, especially when a life is needlessly lost,” said Michaels.

It is time to strengthen OSHA. American workers deserve to have an effective and strong OSHA to protect workers’ health and safety in the work place. OSHA should be empowered to enforce our nation’s safety regulations and impose meaningful fines on employers charged with serious safety violations and on stop repeat violators.

Source: www.nsc.org/Pages/ProtectingAmerica.aspx

Don’t Stick Your Head In The Sand After a Work Injury!

John Sheehan — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:08:47 +0000

Time and time again I talk to injured workers who put off hiring a lawyer hoping that the insurance company will do the right thing. Funny, I’ve yet to see that happen.

Many injured workers are afraid that the insurance company will punish them by stopping their workers’ comp check or denying medical treatment if they hire a lawyer.

The injured worker doesn’t realize, however, that the adjuster is interested in protecting the insurer’s money and is not looking out for the injured workers’ best interests.

Case in point.

Within a week of accepting liability for the case, the adjuster asks an injured worker to sign an agreement to give the insurer another six months to continue to pay workers comp benefits “without prejudice”. That means that the insurance company has another six months to stop the workers comp checks with just seven days notice to the injured worker.

What happens next?

Insurer sends injured worker to one of its doctors to do an “independent” (translated - “insurer”) exam. Insurance doctor writes a report that the medical condition is not related to the work accident. The adjuster quickly stops all workers comp checks right before Christmas. Even then, the injured worker continues to talk to the adjuster on his own — without being represented by a lawyer — in the desperate hope that the insurance company will change its mind and reinstate his workers comp checks. The adjuster strings the injured worker along saying things like: she’s evaluating the claim, call back in a week or she’s reviewing the matter with her supervisor. Meanwhile, months go by before the injured worker finally wakes up and hires a workers comp lawyer to protect his rights and secure payment of his workers comp benefits.

I’ve seen variations of the same deceptive, bate and switch tactics by insurance adjusters time and time again. Without legal representation by an experienced workers comp lawyer, an injured worker is literally at the mercy of the insurance company.

When you’re hurt on the job, you have legal rights. Following a serious, disabling work accident, you need to hire an experienced workers comp lawyer right away even if you’re receiving workers comp benefits.

Don’t stick your head in the sand hoping that the insurance company will do the right thing. Get legal representation with an experienced workers comp lawyer without delay.

Expert Medical Reports Admissible.

John Sheehan — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:36:57 +0000

In O’Malley v. Soske (App. Docket No. 09-P-315), the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that medical expert reports are admissible into evidence at trial under MGL Ch. 233 § 79G.

The case involved a personal injury claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident in Boston, Massachusetts.

Defendant’s attorney hired a medical expert who reviewed plaintiff’s medical records, conducted a physical examination of the plaintiff and issued a written report. The Defendant’s medical expert concluded that “[t]here is no indication that [the plaintiff] sustained any anatomical derangement or structural lesion of her muskuloskeletal system as a consequence of the subject accident.”

Defendant’s attorney offered the medical expert’s report into evidence. Over the objection of plaintiff’s attorney, the trial judge admitted the report. Defendant’s medical expert did not testify at trial.

The jury found the defendant negligent but did not find that the plaintiff’s injuries were causally related to the motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff appealed.

Upholding the admission of the expert report, the Appeals Court confirmed that MGL Ch. 233 § 79G provides that “…any report of any examination of said injured person, … shall be admissible as evidence of … the diagnosis of said physician …, the prognosis of such physician…, the opinion of such physician…as to proximate cause of the condition so diagnosed, the opinion of such physician…as to disability or incapacity, if any, proximately resulting from the condition so diagnosed…”

MGL Ch. 233 §79G is a statute that outlines a procedure for offering medical records, physician/therapist notes, medical treatment bills and physician reports into evidence at trial without the need of having the physician testify in court. Such medical evidence is admissible under the statute as an exception to the hearsay rule.

There has been an effort by some practitioners to limit the statute’s application to reports of treating physicians created in the course of medical treatment and to exclude reports generated at the request of a lawyer for use at trial.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court confirmed and clarified the application of the statute in O’Malley v. Soske to include the admissibility of reports generated or created specifically in connection with the litigation. As long as the physician report otherwise complies with the statute (i.e. the opinions offered are to a reasonable degree of medical certainty by a duly license physician based on an examination of the claimant and sworn to or affirmed by the physician under the penalties of perjury) and the statutory notice is given to opposing counsel, then the report should be admitted into evidence even if the report was authored by a hired medical expert.

My New and Improved Website

John Sheehan — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:13:25 +0000

I’m pleased to announce the launch of my firm’s new and improved website — attorneysheehan.com.

I have had the privilege of representing hundreds of injured workers and accident victims over the years. While some in the media and our communities joke about lawyers — often in a malicious, mean spirited and uninformed way — I have seen the positive impact my legal representation has made in the lives of my clients and their families.

If you ask me what do I do for a living? I could answer that I’m a personal injury trial lawyer. I say that with great pride. Really, what I do is simply help people…regular, everyday working people. That’s the same for my fellow trial lawyers.

I offer this reflection as I start a new beginning with this new and improved website. I hope that it provides a valuable service to injured workers and accident victims in Massachusetts.

Open and Obvious Danger Defense Rejected in Snow and Ice Case

John Sheehan — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:36:41 +0000

As reported in this week’s Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, the Massachusetts Appeals Court rejected the “open and obvious danger” defense in a “snow and ice case”. The case is Soederberg v. Concorde Greene Condominium Association et al., (Mass. App. Ct. Docket No. 09-P-380).

The case involved an elderly resident of the condominium complex who broke her hip when she slipped and fell on frozen slush while trying to walk to the parking lot.

The trial judge instructed the jury that it should issue a defense verdict if the it determined that the icy condition was an “open and obvious danger”. The jury responded affirmatively to that special question and issued a defense verdict pursuant to the trial judge’s instructions.

In rejecting the “open and obvious danger” defense, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held:

“We conclude that the open and obvious danger rule does not operate to negate a landowner’s duty to remedy hazardous conditions resulting from unnatural accumulations of ice and snow, at least where, as here, those hazards lie in a known path of travel.”

It remains to be seen who extensive the impact of the decision will be. Presumably, defense counsel will continue to use the “open and obvious danger” defense in order to argue that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. It may not, under the Soederberg case, be used bar to recovery absolutely.