Source: http://www.sullivanlitigation.com/results/
Timestamp: 2020-01-21 02:11:20
Document Index: 597387235

Matched Legal Cases: ['§34', '§34', '§11', '§ 11', '§34', '§34', '§34', '§34']

Results « Sullivan Litigation
Francis Roman v. Tony Francois and Lindley Acquisition Corp.
This case arose out of a rear end motor vehicle accident which took place between the plaintiff and defendant on April 4, 2014 in Malden, Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleged following the accident the defendant had left the scene of the accident chasing him down Main Street until the police arrived. The defendant denied that he attempted to leave the scene of an accident and that the plaintiff had waved him on and that he was free to go. This was a hotly contested issue with multiple Motions in Limine addressing various statements and actions of the parties before and after the contact between the two vehicles and before and after the police arrived. The issue was also addressed in part during a full panel voir dire which was requested by both parties and allowed by the court. Plaintiff claimed multiple injuries to his shoulders, hands, wrists, neck and back together with post concussive-like symptoms aggravating pre-existing conditions. Specifically the plaintiff’s primary injuries consisted of a rotator cuff tear and injury to his wrist both requiring surgery. Plaintiff incurred approximately $85,000.00 in medical bills. The plaintiff called Dr. Gary Perlmutter as his expert witness who testified in court that the accident was an aggravation of the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition and was directly responsible for the subsequent shoulder injury and surgery which Dr. Perlmutter performed on the plaintiff. Evidence was also introduced by the plaintiff’s other treating physicians that the plaintiff had suffered a 75% loss of function in his upper right extremity as well as a 90% loss of function of his upper left extremity together with a permanent 75% whole person impairment. The defendant called Dr. Michael Kennedy as their expert witness who rebutted Dr. Perlmutter’s testimony asserting the accident was not a substantial contributing cause to the plaintiff’s subsequent surgeries, but rather the progression of a long and inevitable degeneration of his upper extremities. The jury deliberated for approximately half a day and returned a verdict of no negligence. 2018.
Route 106 Motors v. Bay State Ford
The trial of this matter arose out of a dispute between two businesses with respect to alleged negligent maintenance claimed by the plaintiff dealership against the defendant dealership. The plaintiff asserted not only negligence but also violation of M.G.L. Chapter 93A business to business claim. The plaintiff as part of its business model would purchase used vehicles from multiple sources including auctions, recondition them and re-sell them to the public. A number of these vehicles have been brought by the plaintiff to the defendant for diagnosis, and occasionally repair. Many of the vehicles would simply be evaluated by the defendant and returned to the plaintiff who would use their own in-house mechanics to perform the work that had been suggested by the defendant Ford dealership. The case involved one such vehicle which was a Ford F350 Super Duty pickup truck which had numerous repairs performed by the defendant on an on and off basis for approximately one year. The plaintiff also had worked done at third party maintenance facilities as well as work done by its own in-house automotive staff on the subject truck. Despite numerous efforts to coordinate these repairs and to quarterback the repairs under one garage, the plaintiff chose to attempt the repair of the numerous power, transmission and exhaust problems through multiple providers which made it impossible for the repairs to be done consistently. An ASE certified mechanic from the defendant Ford dealership testified to the diagnostics and maintenance protocol used by Ford and explained to the jury, with the use of visual aids the good faith efforts made by the dealership to repair this troubled vehicle and further how damage had been done to the vehicle by other third parties efforts to fix the vehicle, which the defendant had no role in creating. The jury was out for approximately half a day and returned a verdict of no negligence. Finally, the court, after hearing the jury verdict ruled that there was no basis for a separate and independent violation of M.G.L. Chapter 93A and entered judgment for the defendant. 2018.
James R. Dalton v. Anthony J. Petrella
This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident between the plaintiff and the defendant on December 14, 2013, at approximately 3:00 a.m., at the intersection of Damon Road and Lawrence Road, Medford, Massachusetts. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was speeding as he approached the uncontrolled intersection in the early morning hours. Defendant contested negligence and asserted in fact that it was the plaintiff who was driving at a high rate of speed and not keeping a proper lookout. At the time of the collision the plaintiff’s vehicle lost control, left the intersection and drove partially up on to the lawn of a neighboring house. Both vehicles suffered significant damage and were both towed from the scene of the accident. Plaintiff asserted he suffered from a concussion as well as neck and back injuries. Plaintiff also asserted that he had lost his job as financial analyst with New York Life Insurance Company and had suffered consequential financial damages as a result of the accident. Plaintiff was cross-examined with employment records at the time of the trial which put into question what was the precipitating cause for his loss of a position as a financial analyst. There were no independent witnesses to the collision who testified at trial. The jury was out for approximately 90 minutes and returned a verdict for the defendant finding no negligence. 2018.
Joshua Nesbitt vs. Daemon Gregory and Double C. Fruit, Inc.
Both parties filed motions for full panel voir dire, which was allowed by the court. The primary issues in voir dire were corporate responsibility, bias against interstate truck drivers and long term medical treatment. This case arose out of an accident involving a commercial tractor trailer tandem and the Plaintiff operating a pickup truck at an intersection in Charlton, MA at approximately 6:00 p.m. the day after Christmas on December 26, 2013. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant truck driver ran through a red light, was reckless and failed to travel at an appropriate speed to stop the truck as it approached the large intersection. The Plaintiff testified that he was stopped at a red light which turned green, causing him to enter the intersection at which time he was struck by the right side of the trailer as the truck driver was switching lanes from the right to the left lane going through the red light. The Defendant testified that while she was operating the tractor trailer, she was coming down a hill and due to the inclement weather conditions (light rain and ice), she was unable to stop as the light had turned from green to yellow. She admitted at the time of trial that it was likely that when the entire tractor trailer tandem went through the intersection that the light had turned to red, but could not stop the vehicle without potentially causing a more serious accident and critically injuring and/or killing somebody if the tractor and trailer had flipped in the event that she had thrown on the brakes to try and stop for the light. She also testified to flashing her lights and using her commercial truck horn to alert individuals at the intersection. An investigation was conducted by the Charlton Police Department, which resulted in no citation being issued to the truck driver. The Defendant at the time of trial attempted to introduce this evidence of non-citation but was precluded by the Plaintiff filing a motion in limine which was allowed by the court, excluding this evidence. The Plaintiff testified prior to the accident that he had been deer hunting most of the day by himself in a tree stand and was driving home at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff further asserted that he suffered significant injuries from the accident, including the following: (1.) Clinical depression/anxiety disorder as a result of the accident; (2.) Traumatic tear of the right shoulder rotator cuff; and (3.) Soft tissue injuries to the neck and back. The Plaintiff had approximately $60,000 in medical bills. Prior to the start of trial, the Plaintiff withdrew the depression/anxiety disorder claim as well as the lost wages claim. The jury deliberated for approximately 5 hours before returning a verdict for the Defendant. 2017.
Jose Garcia vs. Brett McRae
Both parties filed pretrial motions in this case, requesting full panel voir dire which was granted by the court. The primary issues in voir dire were differentiating between liability/causation/damages, pre-existing medical conditions and mitigation of damages. The Defendant stipulated to liability in this case, as he was unavailable for trial. This case arose as a result of a rear-end accident between two motor vehicles in Peabody, MA. The Plaintiff claimed significant injuries as a result of the motor vehicle accident, including the following: (1.) Cervical disc herniation at C5-C6 and C6-C7; (2.) Lumbar disc herniation at L3-L4 and T12-L1; and (3.) Right shoulder internal derangement. The Plaintiff incurred approximately $80,000 in medical bills for treatment from 2012 – 2014. The case focused on the issue of medical causation in which the Plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. Robert Pennell causally linked the motor vehicle accident to an exacerbation of underlying pre-existing conditions, together with new separate independent injuries as noted above. The Defendant’s expert witness Dr. Chaglassian held a contrary opinion, testifying that there was no causal relationship between the disc herniations and the motor vehicle accident, although conceding there was an exacerbation of the underlying soft tissue injuries in both the cervical and lumbar spines for a modest period of disability if Plaintiff’s subjective complaints are to be believed. At the time of trial, there was extensive cross-examination of the Plaintiff regarding his pre-existing medical conditions that preceded the motor vehicle accident by approximately 10 years. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant, finding no causation between the Defendant’s stipulated negligence and the motor vehicle accident, resulting in a Defendant’s verdict. 2017.
Rubiela Tabares vs. Mary Quirk
This case arose out of a pedestrian motor vehicle accident which took place near the Andrews Square MBTA station on Dorchester Avenue, Boston, MA. It was uncontested at the time of the accident that there was a light rain and it was approximately 6:00 p.m. in the winter. The Plaintiff was crossing the street and alleged that the Defendant was negligent in the operation of her vehicle, failing to yield to a pedestrian, failing to keep a proper lookout and driving at an excessive rate of speed. At the time of trial, the Defendant presented evidence that she was changing lanes at the time of the accident not because she was inattentive or failing to keep a proper lookout, but was attempting to avoid the Plaintiff who was crossing the street and kept moving forward directly in front of the Defendant. The Plaintiff was struck by the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, briefly vaulted into the air and down onto the pavement. She suffered injuries to her head, neck and right hip. She was diagnosed with a closed head injury, post-concussion symptoms and soft tissue injuries. The Plaintiff incurred approximately $10,000 in medical bills, and claimed continuing permanent injuries and post-concussion syndrome. The Defendant testified at trial that the Plaintiff was the primary cause of the accident as she was using an umbrella which obscured her view of traffic and crossed directly in the path of the Defendant’s vehicle, leaving her little or no opportunity to avoid the accident. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant, finding no negligence. 2017.
Tahir Khan vs. Kathleen Masucci
This is a civil motor vehicle negligence case arising out of an accident at the Route 60 rotary (Squire Road), Revere, Massachusetts rotary on October 14, 2011. The Plaintiff was operating his vehicle in the left-hand lane and asserted the Defendant entered the rotary from Route 1 South without yielding or stopping striking his vehicle and forcing it off the rotary onto a grassy embankment. The Defendant testified when she entered the rotary, she was in the right-hand lane and the Plaintiff was in the left-hand lane at which point in time the Plaintiff without using his indicator simply sped up and attempted to exit the rotary, turning right and cutting in front of the Defendant’s vehicle causing the accident. Detailed photographs at the accident scene and vehicles were enlarged and used at the time of trial for both parties to support their positions and movement of the vehicles shortly before the accident took place. Plaintiff claimed significant injuries, including (1) disc herniations at C3-C4, C4-C5; (2) lumbar herniation of the L4-L5; (3) left shoulder internal derangement and impingement; (4) cervical strain; and (5) acute thoracic strain. The Plaintiff underwent surgery to her cervical spine and also underwent significant treatment for the left shoulder injury including subacominal injections. The Plaintiff had approximately $60,000 in medical bills and significant loss wage claim of $100,000. The Defendant’s expert witness Dr. DiTullio testified the Plaintiff’s cervical and lumbar herniations were all unrelated to the October 14, 2011 accident. The Plaintiff’s pre-existing congenital condition including a narrowing of the spinal canal together with degenerative disc disease was the cause of the Plaintiff’s current injuries and the need for surgery. The Plaintiff submitted testimony from the treating physicians which contradicted Dr. DiTullio’s testimony, but acknowledged the degenerative joint disease. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant finding no negligence. 2017.
Marsha Chery vs. Marcia Gordon
On or about September 25, 2013 the Defendant was operating a motor vehicle at the intersection of New England Avenue and Talbot Avenue, Dorchester, Massachusetts when the accident occurred. The Defendant was attempting to take a left-hand turn and was trapped in the intersection when the light had turned from green to yellow to red. The Defendant had already committed to taking a left and was fully into the intersection blocking traffic to her right and her left. The Plaintiff approached the intersection from the Defendant’s right and claimed that the Defendant continued to make the left-hand turn on a red light at which time the impact between the two vehicles took place. Plaintiff claimed injuries to her neck, back, post-traumatic headaches and approximately $10,000 in medical bills, but no loss wages. The Court granted the Defendant’s Motion for a Directed Verdict at the close of the Plaintiff’s case finding no negligence. 2017.
Evgeny S. Sushko vs. Adam C. Veary
This is a case which arose out of a motor vehicle accident on June 28, 2011 on Route 28 in West Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The Defendant stipulated to the liability and tried the case on the issues of causation and damages. The Plaintiff testified including post-concussion symptoms together with neck and back injuries. He asserted approximately $20,000.00 in special damages (including medical bills and lost wages). Plaintiff, a construction manager for a Cape Cod general contractor, testified at the time of trial he was unable to work for a significant period of time as a result of his injuries including post concussion complications that prevented him from being able to carry out his normal supervisory responsibilities. Evidence was obtained that Plaintiff had taken an extended vacation to Florida during the time period of his claimed injuries and partial disability. The appraiser on behalf of the Defendant testified to the moderate amount of physical damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the accident. Individual Voir Dire was permitted for the selection of the jury and was helpful to both the Plaintiff and Defendant in identifying potentially biased jurors and producing a well-balanced and attentive jury. The jury found for the Defendant, finding no causation. 2017.
John Doe vs. ABC Manufacturer, Inc.
Sullivan & Associates, LLC successfully obtained a favorable settlement in the amount of $150,000 in a products liability action arising out of a defective star point socket bit. Sullivan & Associates, LLC brought a subrogation action in Suffolk Superior Court against an overseas product manufacturer and wholesale tool supplier after the subject tool shattered causing a significant eye injury to an automotive mechanic. It was alleged that a material deficiency in the manufacturing process (heat treatment, chemical composition, microstructure issues) within the subject bit more than likely contributed to the catastrophic torsional overload resulting in the shattered bit entering the claimants eye. The Firm retained a Professional Engineer and Metallurgy Expert to establish the subject tool was defective and in an unsafe condition when it shattered while being used in a reasonable manner and in a customary application for which subject tools are designed and intended. The matter was settled prior to trial in 2016.
Accursio Oliva ppa Rosalinda Oliva vs. Ana Muniz
On April 18, 2012 the Defendant was driving in Gloucester, MA when the Plaintiff, a minor pedestrian, attempted to cross a street when he was struck by the motor vehicle. The issue was hotly contested at trial as to whether or not the Plaintiff was walking or whether or not he was running when he entered the street. The accident happened during the daylight and the Plaintiff took the position the Defendant was not driving in a reasonable manner at all times and keeping a proper lookout for pedestrians. A further contested issue was the point of impact where the Plaintiff said the Defendant had run the Plaintiff down and the Defendant had stated that the Plaintiff had walked into the right front passenger wheel well areal and not the front bumper area.
The Plaintiff suffered a fracture of his foot as a result of the vehicle running over his foot at the point of impact. He was taken to Addison Gilbert Hospital where he was casted and remained out of school for some time. He had follow up medical care at an orthopedist and made a strong recovery from the fracture. The Plaintiff suffered approximately $12,000.00 in medical bills and lost wages.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant. 2016.
David A. DeMarco vs. Charles H. Nuytten d/b/a CN Blocks
This case arises from the sale of a custom designed race car engine block. The Plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, alleged the Defendant, a Texas Corporation, sold him a defective product and brought suit in Massachusetts. The Plaintiff had called the Texas-based Defendant about ordering the engine block and then later faxed an executed order form to the company. Sullivan & Associates, LLC filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction on behalf of the Defendant. The Plaintiff argued the Defendant subjected itself to Massachusetts jurisdiction by not only completing the transaction with him, but also by maintaining a “highly interactive website,” which purposely directed activities at Massachusetts residents. However, Sullivan & Associates successfully argued: (1) the forum selection clause in the order form, stating the venue for disputes would be Texas, was not irrational; (2) the Defendant owned no property, maintained no offices, and did not advertise in Massachusetts; (3) the subject sale was an isolated transaction; and (4) the Defendant’s generally non-interactive website was not enough to establish jurisdiction. The court after consideration of all the issues dismissed the case in 2016.
Keith Furtado vs. George Baker and Leonora Baker
The Plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle on Route 6 in Swansea, MA when he approached the intersection with Gardner’s Neck Road where the Defendant was taking a left hand turn. The Defendant was a senior citizen who just returned from a clam chowder lunch with her disabled husband. The Defendant had multiple medical conditions which prevented her from being able to appear for trial. The Plaintiff vigorously objected to the failure of the Defendant to appear at the time of trial and allowing the Defendant to read any portion of the Defendant’s transcript in evidence. A brief evidentiary hearing was conducted via telephone with the Defendant’s treating physician pursuant to Commonwealth v. Housewright, 470 Mass. 665 (2015). Following the evidentiary hearing with the treating physician, portions of the Defendant’s testimony was allowed to be read in evidence on the issue of liability as the Defendant was unavailable for trial. One of the significant issues at trial was the issue of the Plaintiff’s speed at the time of the intersection and the topography of the intersection and the slight rise before the intersection which impeded the view of both operators of the motor vehicles. There was substantial damage to both vehicles which were totaled as a result of the accident. The Plaintiff’s injuries at the time of trial were left shoulder, neck and back injuries. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant. 2016.
Idemudia Iyore vs. Kory Laznick and Casee Laznick
The Plaintiff filed suit as the result of a rotary accident on Route 60 in Revere, MA at the Copeland Rotary in which both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were traveling on the rotary at the time of the collision. The Plaintiff claimed $15,000.00 in medical bills and lost wages as a result of the accident. The Defendant contested liability throughout the trial and pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s description of the accident at deposition and then later at trial. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was responsible for having failed to yield while entering a rotary. The Defendant denied the allegation and asserted in fact it was the Plaintiff who was exiting the rotary at the time of the collision. The Plaintiff asserted that he had suffered injuries to his left shoulder, neck and back and was unable to work for a period of time at his full time position as a limousine driver. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendants. 2016.
Shannon Venezia vs. Nancy Delano
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident in which Sullivan & Associates, LLC was defending the operator of a motor vehicle that was involved in an intersection accident in which the Defendant was making a left hand turn in Plymouth, MA. The evidence at the time of trial demonstrated that the Plaintiff was traveling at a high rate of speed at the time the Defendant was executing her left hand turn. The Plaintiff had substantial property damage to her vehicle. The Plaintiff submitted further damages at the time of trial including medical bills and additional lost wages totaling approximately another $10,000.00 in damages. The Plaintiff further asserted that she had suffered injuries to her wrist, leg, back and neck. The issue the jury had to determine was whether or not the Plaintiffs and Defendants had been in compliance with 720 CMR 9.06(1) Driving Within Marked Lanes. Finally, evidence was introduced documenting significant preexisting conditions of the Plaintiff prior to the motor vehicle accident. A Barnstable County jury returned a verdict for the Defendant. 2015.
Porter v. O’Toole
This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident on December 2, 2009 in which the Defendant rear-ended a vehicle which was stopped in his lane of traffic, forcing the vehicle across the road and into the path of the oncoming Plaintiff vehicle. Liability was hotly contested. This was a two-impact accident which was caused by the “sudden and emergency” operation of the vehicle by the Defendant. Specifically, the accident took place in the winter and the floor mat in the Defendant’s vehicle by the gas and brake pedals had slipped and bunched up creating a condition in which the Defendant could not fully access his brake. The Plaintiff asserted the Defendant was nevertheless liable as it was the Defendant’s operation of the vehicle, carelessness in checking to determine whether or not the vehicle was safe to drive before driving it, and otherwise taking responsibility for the operation and maintenance of his vehicle. The Plaintiff sustained injuries to her back, her hip and her right lower extremity. The Plaintiff had approximately $40,000.00 in medical bills. In addition, the Plaintiff initially had a substantial lost wage claim which was waived at the time of trial. The case was tried before a Norfolk County jury, finding no negligence, resulting in a Defendant’s verdict. 2015
Machado v. Fielding
This is a civil action which arises out of a motor vehicle accident which the Plaintiff and Defendant were traveling on a congested thoroughfare through Everett, MA. The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant traveled into her lane of traffic striking her vehicle causing her to lose control and strike a parked motor vehicle. The Defendant’s vehicle also lost control because of the collision and struck a plow parked on the side of the road. The Plaintiff suffered upper extremity and lower extremity injuries. The Plaintiff further asserted she was unable to return to work, suffered permanent and partial disability as a result of the accident. The case was tried before a Middlesex County jury with a verdict returning for the Defendant. 2015
Tammy Butland vs. Jonathan Saunders
This is a civil motor vehicle/negligence case in which the Plaintiff Butland was rear-ended by the Defendant Saunders suffered a fracture and acute disc herniation in the C5/C6 together with an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition to the Plaintiff’s lumbar spine.
The Defendant was a teenage driver at the time of the accident. Plaintiff treated for a period of four years resulting in a cervical fusion of the C5/C6 vertebrae. Treatment included physical therapy, spinal injections and finally surgery.
The Plaintiff had $100,000.00 in medical bills and was also claiming lost wages in the amount of $50,000.00. At trial the treating physician and the Defendant’s consulting expert witness held contrary opinions as to the causative relationship between the motor vehicle accident and the subsequent cervical disc fusion surgery.
The Plaintiff’s Complaint sought damages for negligence as well as a claim for loss of consortium on behalf of the Plaintiff’s husband. The Plaintiff in closing argument pursuant to the M.G.L. Chapter 234, Section 28 argued to the jury and requested a specific monetary figure in the amount of $380,000.00. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant of no negligence. 2015.
Jennifer Gould vs. Interstate Container Westminster, LLC, et al
The general liability action which arose out of a fall the Plaintiff suffered as a result of an allegedly unreasonable accumulation of snow and ice in the Defendant’s parking lot where she was working as a temporary employee at the manufacturing facility.
The Plaintiff suffered a fracture to her wrist which resulted in a malunion fracture and a recommended future osteotomy. The Plaintiff incurred approximately $15,000.00 in medical bills and claimed $50,000.00 in lost wages.The case was withdrawn on the first day of trial with a judgment for the Defendant. 2015.
George Castillo vs. Tiffany Jordan
This was a pedestrian motor vehicle accident in which the minor Plaintiff was hit by the Defendant vehicle operator while crossing the street in front of the Plaintiff’s residence.The Plaintiff suffered minor head injury and soft tissue damages as a result of the impact.The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant finding no negligence. 2015.
Santiago v. Rich Products
Unfortunately, the Plaintiff, a 7-year-old student at an elementary school in Lowell, MA, in this products liability case choked on a meatball at lunch and lost consciousness. Deprivation of oxygen led to profound brain damage and permanent disability.
He incurred over $1,800,000.00 in medical bills, an estimated $12,000,000.00 in future medicals and in excess of $1,200,000.00 in alleged lost earning capacity. Witnesses testified that the Plaintiff and several friends were having a race to see who could eat several meatballs the fastest when one meatball lodged in the Plaintiff’s trachea.
Teachers on duty first slapped him on the back then twice attempted the Heimlich maneuver, in their ultimately unsuccessful efforts to dislodge the meatball. The Plaintiff’s elementary school was chaotic on the day of the accident.
The principal was at a local emergency room after being attacked by a student, the vice principal was out sick and other supervisory administrators were unavailable.With the breakdown of the chain of command, there was a delay in calling 911.
When EMTs arrived, Plaintiff was unresponsive. They eventually cleared his trachea and got him breathing, then transported him to a local hospital. However, the lack of oxygen caused permanent, irreversible brain damage and the Plaintiff is a quadriplegic, blind and unable to speak, eat or perform other normal functions.
Plaintiff sued the City of Lowell, the EMT service and the manufacturer of the meatballs, Rich Products Corp. for negligence and breach of warranty. The City was dismissed from the case in summary judgment: under Massachusetts law, public employees can only rarely be sued for negligence in the performance of their discretionary duties.
The ambulance company settled out of court and the lawsuit eventually proceeded against just the meatball producer, Rich Products Corp. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was liable because, while most meatballs contain soy in some form, Rich Products used soy protein isolate (SPI) to increase protein content and reduce fat content.
Plaintiff experts testified that their testing confirmed the Rich Products’ meatballs were tougher and harder to chew than prototype meatballs not using SPI. Plaintiff experts also testified that the size of the meatballs (1/2 oz., 1-inch diameter) was the perfect size to block the trachea and consequently increased the choking hazard. The tests used involved a very precise cutting machine which measured the tensile strength of the meatballs upon being cut and the amount of pressure needed to cut them.
The result, Plaintiff claimed, was that in comparison, Defendant’s meatballs were unreasonably tough and chewy. Plaintiff further argued meatballs should provide warnings similar to those voluntarily placed on some hot dog products by their manufacturers, which provide choking warnings.
Plaintiff experts testified that Defendant was responsible for including a similar warning on the meatball packaging, cautioning that young children should be supervised when consuming the product and/or that the product should be cut into smaller pieces.
Defense conducted similar instrument tests, using Plaintiff’s prototype meatballs, Rich Products meatballs and samples from three major competitors of Rich Products. It also tested all the meatballs with a consumer test panel comprised of trained consumers who routinely judge food products for qualities such as taste, texture, mouthfeel and other attributes.
The results of both sets of tests conducted by the Defendant were the same. The Rich meatballs finished in the middle of the pack and were not, defense maintained, unreasonably tough nor did they constitute a choking hazard. The meatball was manufactured in compliance with strict USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and FDA production, food safety and labeling regulations and/or guidelines.
The meatball also complied with all Child Nutrition (CN) requirements in order to gain Federal approval to be served in public schools as part of the CN School Lunch Program. Defense choking expert also testified that the Plaintiff’s choking had nothing to do with the texture of the meatball. At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was engaged in a meatball eating race with other children in the cafeteria.
The Defendant argued that it was this eating contest and not any characteristic of the meatball that led to the unfortunate accident and that the Plaintiff had inhaled as he hurriedly swallowed the meatball during the meatball eating race.
This caused his epiglottis to automatically shift to allow air in and the air and meatball entered his trachea at the same time, causing him to choke.The jury deliberated for one full day and returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant. 2014.
Sullivan v. Cechinel & Teixeira
We represented the Defendant and operator of a vehicle involved in a two car accident. The Defendant operator had consumed alcoholic beverages at a cookout and caused the accident by making an improper left turn at an intersection in Malden, Massachusetts and striking the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
The Defendant offered to stipulate to liability, but the Plaintiff refused. The Plaintiff claimed injuries to his neck, mid back and low back and incurred $10,000.00 in medical bills and approximately $1,000.00 in lost wages. The Plaintiff further alleged the Defendant was negligent in entrusting the vehicle to the operator.
Plaintiff later moved to amend his complaint to include gross negligence and infliction of emotional distress counts against both Defendants. At trial, the negligent entrustment, gross negligence and infliction of emotional distress counts were all dismissed by the Judge, leaving only the negligence count against the Defendant operator.
After a two day trial,the jury issued an award of $5,000.00 to the Plaintiff, which was nullified by the application of an $8,000.00 personal injury protection offset pursuant to M.G.L. c. 90 §34M, resulting in a $0 Judgment for the Plaintiff. 2014.
Virginia Malloy and Christopher Malloy v. Mid-Atlantic Finance Co., Inc. & S.N.A.R.E.
Quincy District Court Norfolk Superior Court US Bankruptcy Court, Massachusetts Quincy District Small Claims Court American Arbitration Association
This case arose out of the repossession of the Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Plaintiffs purchased a vehicle, and the finance contract was purchased by the Defendant Mid-Atlantic Finance, who we represented.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant converted their property, violated Massachusetts repossession laws and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (among other claims) and that these violations constituted unfair and deceptive acts under M.G.L. c. 93A. Plaintiffs demanded $35,000.00 in addition to approximately $1,500.00 in attorney fees prior to commencing litigation.
The contract for the sale of the vehicle included an arbitration clause requiring the parties to submit any claims to binding arbitration at the election of either party. Defendant so elected, but Plaintiffs refused, necessitating the Defendant to file a complaint for arbitration in Norfolk Superior Court, as the Superior Court holds exclusive jurisdiction to hear questions of arbitration.
Over repeated opposition by Plaintiffs, Mid-Atlantic’s portion of the litigation was subsequently transferred to Norfolk Superior Court and the parties were ordered to proceed to arbitration at American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). Plaintiffs next alleged that Defendant’s filing of the Demand for Arbitration with AAA constituted a violation of Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy discharge and filed an Adversarial Complaint for Violation of the Discharge Agreement.
Following oral arguments in US Bankruptcy Court, Defendant was granted summary judgment as Plaintiffs’ allegations lacked merit. Despite the pending proceedings in Norfolk Superior Court and at AAA, Plaintiffs filed a complaint Quincy District Small Claims Court in an attempt to avoid arbitration.
This litigation was stayed by Norfolk Superior Court pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings. At the time of arbitration, Plaintiffs sought over $40,000.00 in attorney fees. After a single day arbitration hearing, we successfully arbitrated this case and were able to limit the arbitrator’s award to Plaintiff to $3,980.00.
The arbitrator further awarded $1,326.67 in attorney fees which was nullified by the application of an $15,000.00 settlement offset from Plaintiffs’ settlement with co-Defendant S.N.A.R.E., resulting in no attorney fees to Plaintiffs’ Attorney. 2014.
Michelle Brennan v. Kelley Hosmern
In this civil action, Plaintiff, 40 at the time and unemployed, was parked by the side of the street near Horn Pond in Woburn, Massachusetts when she was hit from behind by a vehicle driven by Defendant Kelley Hosmer.
She was removed by ambulance to a local hospital where she presented with back and neck pain. The Plaintiff claimed she informed the medical staff at the hospital of her knee injury, but there was no documentation of this complaint.
It was not until months later that there was confirmation on the record where Plaintiff alleged right knee pain, which she related to the motor vehicle accident. There were attempts made to heal the injury through conservative treatment including physical therapy, but eventually she underwent surgery to repair the knee.
At that point, a lateral meniscus tear was discovered and repaired. She also suffered soft tissue damage in the neck and upper back. Defendant Hosmer admitted liability, but challenged the causation of the knee injuries, contending that they were preexisting conditions resulting from chronic degenerative joint disease.
Plaintiff’s medical expert, who was also her treating surgeon, testified that the injury was the result of a sudden trauma; i.e., the collision. He testified that she had $45,000 in medical bills and future bills of $50,000. Defendant’s medical expert, and practicing orthopedic surgeon, testified that the injury was the result of a chronic degenerative condition, although the soft tissue damage was probably the result of the collision.
Defense produced medical records showing that Brennan had a long history of degenerative joint problems in her neck and back going back to 1999. She also had a significant history of prescription pain medication which was not altered following the accident.
The jury deliberated for 1 hour and 30 minutes and returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. 2014.
Virginia Cummings v. Patricia Wahlberg
In this civil action, the Plaintiff asserted that this was a case of clear-cut liability which the Defendant rear ended the Plaintiff causing her severe injuries. The accident occurred in heavy traffic at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Route 16 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Our insured (Defendant) rear-ended the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Plaintiff filed suit against our insured alleging that unlike the majority of individuals who would not have been injured in this accident, she was an “eggshell Plaintiff” in that evidence would show she was injured due to a delicate medical condition that preexisted the accident.
The motor vehicle accident, although minor, was one which triggered a dormant myofascial pain syndrome and post mastectomy reconstructive syndrome that the Plaintiff had previously been suffering from for a period of 10 years.
The Plaintiff presented a medical expert witness who testified that the aggravation of this preexisting condition was serious and caused her to incur approximately $100,000.00 in medical bills and treatment which were all reasonable, necessary and related to the motor vehicle accident.
He described her condition as one which was “dormant” and that was “triggered” by the motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff also alleged that she was unable to work as a real estate developer during this time period and suffered approximately $500,000.00 in lost earnings.
The Defendant’s medical expert witness, a practicing orthopedic surgeon, testified based on his education, training and experience that the Plaintiff only suffered a minor cervical strain as a result of the motor vehicle accident.
He estimated there would be a 6-8 week period of partial disability and that the medical treatment during that time period was reasonable and necessary. He further testified that the remainder of the medical treatment for the past 6 years was completely unnecessary, unreasonable and unrelated to the motor vehicle accident.
The jury deliberated for 30 minutes and returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. Our client was awarded and collected $1,830.73 in court costs from the Plaintiff. 2013.
Fernando Oliveira v. Jason Oliveira et al
In this civil action, the Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle operated by his son, who was the Defendant. This accident occurred when the Defendant came upon four other vehicles stopped in the road after an accident had occurred between them.
Our client struck the last vehicle in this four-car chain of vehicles. The Plaintiff filed suit against all five drivers involved in this multi-car accident. The four other drivers reached settlement with the Plaintiff prior to trial.
The Plaintiff, who was a General Manger of a recreational vehicle dealership, claimed severe left knee injuries which resulted in total knee replacement surgery, incurred medical bills of $140,000.00 and also alleged his knee injuries were so severe he could no longer work.
The Plaintiff presented a medical expert witness who testified the Plaintiff’s knee injuries and resulting surgery was the result of the accident. The Plaintiff also presented testimony from an economist who testified the Plaintiff had suffered a lost earning capacity in the amount of approximately $1,000,000.00.
Two expert witnesses testified for the Defendant at trial. The Defendant’s medical expert witness, a practicing orthopedic surgeon, testified the manner in which the Plaintiff claimed his left knee struck the dashboard could not have caused the condition which necessitated the total knee replacement surgery and that the surgery was actually required due to degenerative conditions in the Plaintiff’s left knee.
The Defendant’s vocational rehabilitation expert also appeared for the Defendant and testified the Plaintiff could have returned to work after this accident and worked without any limitation. The jury deliberated for two hours and returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant. 2012.
Kantorosinski Chiropractic, Inc. v. Encompass Insurance Company of Massachusetts
In this civil action, the Plaintiff alleged Encompass Insurance Company of Massachusetts (Encompass) violated the statutory provisions of M.G.L. c. 90 §34M by failing to pay the medical bills of two underlying claimants pursuant to Personal Injury Protection insurance issued to the underlying claimants by Encompass.
The Plaintiff alleged that he had sent the underlying claimants’ medical records and accompanying bills to the Defendant who refused to pay the medical bills. The Defendant alleged that the medical bills were neither reasonable nor necessary and therefore it had no duty to pay them.
At trial the Plaintiff chiropractor testified the medical bills represented reasonable and necessary medical treatment related to the underlying motor vehicle accident. The personal injury protection claims adjuster and the Special Investigations Unit investigator who investigated this claim both testified the claim was not paid after a thorough investigation by Encompass showed this accident was too minor to have caused any injuries and as a result the unpaid medical bills were not reasonable or necessary.
A chiropractor who reviewed the disputed medical records and bills testified on behalf of the Defendant and stated in his opinion the complaints of pain and injury made by the claimants were not consistent with the minor motor vehicle accident in which they had been involved.
A property damage analysis expert also appeared for the Defendant and testified the accident between the two vehicles involved in this claim was so minor that no vehicle incurred any damage and in fact there was not even any paint transfer between the two vehicles.
Finally, the operator of the vehicle which struck the rear of the vehicle operated by the underlying claimants testified at trial and described the minor nature of this impact. The jury deliberated for two hours and returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant. 2012.
Rose et al v. Highway Equipment Company
This was a products liability case in which the Plaintiff Mr. Rose suffered a near amputation of his right hand while performing maintenance upon a sand spreading machine manufactured by the Defendant.
Mr. Rose claimed that he was performing maintenance to the sand spreading machine when his sleeve became entangled in unguarded chains and sprockets at the end of the machine’s conveyor belt, causing his hand to be dragged into the machine and nearly amputated.
He alleged the machine was defectively designed because there were no guards over the sprockets and chains within which he became entangled. The Plaintiff incurred $350,000.00 in medical bills and $75,000.00 in lost wages. The Plaintiff’s Complaint also contained a count of loss of consortium.
The Defendant argued that the machine was properly designed but had been modified in a manner that defeated the sand spreading machine’s safety design. The sand spreading machine was designed to be mounted on a flat bed truck within 2 inches of the truck’s cab.
This placement would prevent anyone from getting near the unguarded sprockets and chains. Before Mr. Rose’s accident, the sand spreading machine was removed from the truck it was originally mounted on and mounted on a second truck with almost two feet of space between that truck’s cab and the chains and sprockets within which Mr. Rose became entangled.
The Defendant argued this improper mounting of the sand spreading machine on the second truck allowed Mr. Rose to have access to parts of the machine he never would have been able to come into contact with had the sand spreading machine been remounted correctly.
The Defendant also argued Mr. Rose was intoxicated at the time of this accident as blood alcohol testing performed on him after this accident occurred showed the presence of alcohol in his blood at the time of the accident.
At trial the Plaintiff’s expert mechanical engineer testified the sand spreading machine was defective in design because the sprockets and chains were completely unguarded, despite the fact that it was feasible to place guards upon them.
A medical expert witness for the Plaintiff also testified the blood alcohol testing performed upon the Plaintiff was unreliable. A representative of the Defendant testified the machine was not defective in design, and that the incorrect reinstallation of the machine was the cause of Mr. Rose’s injuries.
The Defendant’s medical expert testified the multiple blood alcohol tests performed upon the Plaintiff were reliable, correctly done and showed that the Plaintiff was intoxicated and impaired at the time this accident occurred.
The jury deliberated for 4 hours and returned a verdict for the Defendant on all counts of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 2012.
Mary Curran v. Rithy Hoeun
In this case the Plaintiff claimed neck and back injuries after being rear-ended by the Defendant. Prior to the accident the Plaintiff was traveling on Rouke Bridge in Lowell, Massachusetts when she heard sirens.
She assumed an ambulance was coming from behind her and took an exit off the bridge, pulled to the right and stopped on the side of the road so the ambulance could pass her. The Defendant testified prior to the accident he was traveling on the bridge when he too heard sirens from an ambulance, but observed it was approximately 40 to 50 feet in front of him traveling in the opposite direction.
He entered the off ramp the Plaintiff had entered and after coming around a blind corner on the off ramp he observed the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped in the middle of the off ramp. He applied his brakes in an attempt to stop, but was unsuccessful.
The Plaintiff claimed to have suffered head injuries, left leg injuries and shoulder injuries as a result of this accident. The jury deliberated for 50 minutes before returning a verdict for the Defendant and finding the Defendant was not negligent. 2012.
Richard Kopyscinski v. Sue Loranger and Central Chevrolet, Inc.
In this civil action, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant, who was operating a vehicle owned by her employer, recklessly entered a four-way intersection in West Springfield, Massachusetts causing a collision between the two vehicles.
The Plaintiff alleged he approached the intersection, stopped, did not see any traffic and proceeded to take a left-hand turn into the intersection. He further claimed the Defendant then sped into the intersection, striking the right side of his vehicle.
The Defendant testified her entry into this intersection was not controlled by a stop sign, the Plaintiff failed to stop at his own stop sign and took a left-hand turn in front of her which was the cause of this accident. The Plaintiff claimed severe injuries to his neck, including spinal cord injuries and multiple cervical disc injuries.
He claimed the neurological symptoms associated with these injuries came on gradually and lasted for over a year, requiring him to have cervical spine surgery approximately 15 months after this accident occurred. The Plaintiff’s expert witness testified at trial the Plaintiff’s cervical injuries were the result of the motor vehicle accident and had left the Plaintiff with a 38% whole person impairment.
The Defendant’s expert medical witness testified the cervical spine surgery the Plaintiff underwent was not the result of this motor vehicle accident, but rather was required due to numerous degenerative conditions within the Plaintiff’s cervical spine.
The jury deliberated for one hour and forty-five minutes and returned a verdict in favor of the Defendants. After trial, we filed a Motion to Recover Court Costs. Our client was awarded and collected $4,005.75 in Court costs from the Plaintiff. 2011.
Donna Johnson v. Daniel Gauvin and Webster Veterinary Supply Company.
The Plaintiff in this case was a passenger in a motor vehicle stopped to make a left hand turn on Route 28 in Falmouth, MA. The vehicle containing the Plaintiff was struck from behind by a third party with whom the Plaintiff settled prior to trial.
This impact caused the vehicle containing the Plaintiff to be pushed into oncoming traffic where it was struck by a van driven by Defendant Daniel Gauvin and owned by his employer, Webster Veterinary Supply, Inc.
The Plaintiff alleged that after being pushed into oncoming traffic, the vehicle in which she was a passenger came to a stop and was at rest for 10-15 seconds before it was struck by the van operated by Mr. Gauvin.
The Plaintiff also alleged Mr. Gauvin’s employer Webster Veterinary Supply Company was liable to her under the theory of Respondeat Superior. As a result of this accident, the Plaintiff suffered serious injuries, including two fractured lumbar vertebrae and 4 broken ribs, and further claimed the accident exacerbated a pre-existing heart condition, superventricular tachycardia.
She incurred $187,000.00 in medical bills. She also alleged she and her privately held computer consulting corporation lost approximately $200,000.00 in income as a result of her inability to return to work timely and work as extensively as she could prior to the accident.
At trial, an independent witness testified the vehicle containing the Plaintiff was struck by Mr. Gauvin’s van less than a second after it had been pushed into Mr. Gauvin’s lane of travel. Two expert witnesses also testified for the Defendants at trial. The Defendants’ medical expert witness, a cardiologist, testified the Plaintiff’s pre-existing superventricular tachycardia was not exacerbated as the result of this accident.
The Defendant’s second expert witness, a forensic accountant, testified the Plaintiff’s private computer consulting corporation had lost money each year for several years prior to the accident, and that the corporation’s losses following the accident were not related to the accident, but rather were the continuation of its downward financial trend.
After a four day trial the jury deliberated for 30 minutes before returning a verdict for the Defendants. After trial, we filed a Motion to Recover Court Costs. Our client was awarded and collected $2,577.70 in Court costs from the Plaintiff. 2011.
Stites v. B.L. Ogilvie and Sons, Inc. et al
This was a lawsuit brought by a Plaintiff who developed and ultimately died from Malignant Mesothelioma, allegedly due to exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured or distributed by the Defendants.
Prior to his death the Plaintiff provided four days of deposition testimony, during which he testified that throughout his childhood and teenage years he came into contact with an asbestos insulating board in his parent’s barn.
He and his siblings would perform arts and crafts activities, which required soldering upon this board, constantly through their childhood and teenage years. When asked where this asbestos board was purchased the Plaintiff testified his father loved to shop at our client’s store and purchased all of his household supplies there.
We filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in which we argued the Plaintiff had not offered product identification testimony specific enough to prove at trial the asbestos board had actually been purchased at our client’s business. Our Motion for Summary Judgment was allowed. 2011.
Scott Gray v. Alix Etienne and Peterborough Cab, Inc.
In this civil action the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked on the side of Staniford Street in Boston, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff claimed as he pulled from his parking lot he was struck by the taxicab driven by the Defendant taxi driver, which the Plaintiff alleged was traveling at an unreasonably high rate of speed.
The Defendant alleged the Plaintiff pulled out from his parking spot without looking and caused the accident. The Plaintiff claimed to have suffered injuries to his neck, back and shoulder which caused him to incur $4,000.00 in medical bills and lose $7,200.00 in wages.
The jury deliberated for one hour before returning a verdict in favor of the Defendants. 2011
Grant v. Cormier
This was a motor vehicle accident case which occurred at a four-way intersection in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Both operators claimed the other operator ran a red light and caused the accident. Both vehicles had significant damage.
The Plaintiff claimed severe injuries to his neck and back which required hospital and chiropractic treatment and was unable to work for several months. The Defendant testified she entered the intersection with a green light in her favor when the Plaintiff entered the intersection at approximately 40 mph causing the accident.
The jury deliberated for 35 minutes and returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant, finding the Defendant was not negligent. 2011.
Kerline Cambronne v. James Staton, the Brockton Area Transit Authority, Robert Donahue and Copeland Toyota, Inc.
This civil action arose from a motor vehicle intersection accident between a bus owned by Defendant Brockton Area Transit Authority (BATA) and a delivery truck owned by our client Defendant Copeland Toyota, Inc.
Our client’s vehicle made a left-hand turn in front of the BATA bus when the accident occurred. The Plaintiff, a passenger on the BATA bus, claimed she suffered a torn rotator cuff as a result of this accident.
The Plaintiff incurred approximately $25,000 in medical bills. The Plaintiff also claimed she was unable to work as a result of the accident, lost $50,000 in wages and subsequently lost her home as she was unable to make mortgage payments.
The Defendant argued the accident did not cause the Plaintiff’s rotator cuff injury, but rather that it was a pre-existing condition. At trial, the Defendant presented expert medical testimony from Dr. Michael Kennedy, who testified the Plaintiff’s rotator cuff injury was a pre-existing condition, and that it was not exacerbated as a result of this accident.
A settlement offer of $25,000.00 was made prior to trial, which the Plaintiff rejected. After a three day trial, the jury issued a verdict for the defendants and found that the Plaintiff’s injuries were not causally related to the accident. 2010.
Flora Deluca v. Dedham Taxi, Inc.
The plaintiff was an elderly passenger who asserted in this case the defendant taxicab company was negligent as the result of a driver’s failure to keep proper control of the taxi at the time he was picking her up in front of her residence.
Plaintiff claimed the taxicab operator failed to put the taxi in park when he exited the vehicle, opened the door and while the plaintiff was attempting to get into the taxi fell out as the result of the taxi rolling down a hill.
Plaintiff claimed she suffered a head and ankle injury and was left on the front porch of her home until her adult daughter found her in the afternoon at which time she reported the injury. Plaintiff developed complications with her diabetes requiring hospitalization and inpatient treatment due to the lower extremity injury.
Plaintiff incurred approximately $26,000 in medical bills. Defendant offered expert witness testimony at trial that the subsequent hospitalization was unrelated to the motor vehicle accident and caused solely by her underlying diabetic condition.
The jury deliberated for approximately one day and returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. 2010.
David Lynch v. Victor Ventura
In this motor vehicle accident case the Defendant struck the rear of the Plaintiff‘s vehicle while it was stopped for a school bus which was discharging children. The impact rendered the Defendant’s vehicle a total loss.
The Plaintiff claimed he suffered neck, back and shoulder injuries and an exacerbation of a preexisting cardiac condition. During cross-examination it was shown the Plaintiff waited 5 days to go to a hospital for medical treatment, 19 days to see his doctor, and an additional 21 days to enter physical therapy.
The jury deliberated for less than one hour and returned a verdict for the Defendant, finding the Defendant was not negligent. 2010.
Patricia Dellamano v. Lee Bock
In this civil action, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant struck the rear side of her vehicle as both vehicles entered an intersection in Quincy, Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff further alleged the Defendant fled the scene of the accident. The Defendant admitted he was at the scene of the accident on the day of the accident, but claimed the Plaintiff made a left hand turn in front of him and denied there was any contact between the two vehicles.
The Plaintiff claimed injuries to her neck and back and incurred medical bills of approximately $10,000.00. The jury deliberated for 13 minutes before returning a verdict for the Defendant. 2010.
Newly Weds Foods, Inc. v. Superior Nut Company, Inc.
We represented the Plaintiff in this subrogation action filed in 2005 and tried in 2009. Our client, Newly Weds Foods, Inc. (NWF), an international company specializing in the manufacture of breadings, spices and rubs, brought this subrogation action against a raw materials supplier, Superior Nut Company (SNC). SNC provided NWF with approximately 12,000 pounds of toasted sesame seeds over the course of several shipments in 2003 which were discovered to have been contaminated with peanuts, a known common allergen.
The toasted sesame seeds were shipped in packaging which did not reveal the possible presence of peanuts or that SNC had failed to use dedicated lines of production to avoid cross contamination. This action was based upon breach of contract, breach of warranty of merchantability and the consumer protection statute, G.L. c. 93A §11 (business to business transactions).
After a 3 week trial the jury found for our client NWF on the breach of contract and breach of warranty claims. The jury also issued an advisory finding on the G.L. c. 93A § 11 claim and found SNC had not only engaged in unfair and deceptive practices, but also that they had done so knowingly and willingly. These findings were adopted by the trial judge. The judge also awarded our client its full attorneys’ fees in prosecuting the action and all costs incurred.
The total amounts recovered for our client were $217,556.00 on the breach of contract and warranty claims, double damages of an additional $217,556.00 pursuant to G.L. c. 93A together with award of $217,393.28 in Attorneys’ Fees and Costs for a total award of $652,505.28 plus 12% interest from the date of filing. 2009.
John Martinelli v. The Holy Spirit Association for the Reunification of the World, et al
The Plaintiff was a bicyclist traveling down Beacon Hill when the Defendant operator opened the door to his parked vehicle when the Plaintiff fell from his bicycle suffering severe head and facial injuries.
The Plaintiff had $50,000.00 in medical bills and $20,000.00 in lost wages. He suffered a skull fracture, together with a subdural hematoma requiring emergency surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital. The Plaintiff was hospitalized for three days and discharged.
The Plaintiff withdrew and dismissed his claim on the first day of trial. 2009.
Carol Furtado v. Allen Levrault
Fall River District Court / Appellate Division of the District Court
This case arises out of a motor vehicle collision which took place in Somerset, Massachusetts when the Defendant was driving back late at night from a friend’s house.
The Defendant’s vehicle entered a large puddle in the road, causing the Defendant to loose control of his vehicle, cross into the Plaintiff’s lane of travel and hit the Plaintiff’s vehicle head on. The Plaintiff suffered numerous injuries, including a fractured vertebrae in her mid back.
The Plaintiff incurred approximately $10,000.00 in medical bills. At trial, the Plaintiff offered expert testimony from her treating doctor who testified to her treatment and ongoing disability as well as from an accident reconstructionist.
The Defendant also provided expert testimony from an accident reconstructionist who rebutted the plaintiff’s accident reconstructionist’s opinion on the issue of speed. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant was speeding prior to the accident which caused the accident.
The Defendant alleged he was driving with due care and was not responsible for this accident. After a 3 day trial, the jury issued a verdict for the Defendant. 2009. Affirmed on appeal to the Appellate Division of the District Court. 2010.
Fernando Lamberti v. Hector Cabrera
This civil action arose from a motor vehicle accident which occurred in Saugus, Massachusetts. The Defendant rear-ended the Plaintiff who was stopped at a stop sign.
The Plaintiff claimed he suffered a herniated cervical disc and other injuries as a result of this accident. The Plaintiff, a self-employed real estate broker, incurred approximately 10,000.00 in medical bills.
The Defendant argued the accident did not cause the Plaintiff’s herniated disc, but rather that it was a pre-existing condition. At trial, the Plaintiff and Defendant both presented expert medical testimony. The Plaintiff’s treating orthopedic doctor testified at trial the herniated disc was caused by the motor vehicle accident.
The Defendant’s expert medical witness testified the Plaintiff’s herniated disc was a pre-existing condition caused by degenerative disc disease, and that it was not exacerbated as a result of this accident.
After a four day trial, the jury issued an award of $4,000.00 to the Plaintiff, which was nullified by the application of an $8,000.00 personal injury protection offset pursuant to M.G.L. c. 90 §34M, resulting in a $0 Judgment for the Plaintiff. 2009.
Joseph DeGloria v. Steady Transport, Inc.
This was a commercial trucking case in which the Plaintiff alleged an 18-wheel tractor trailer without signaling turned into his lane on Interstate 93 North trapping him under the trailer and crushing the hood of his vehicle. The Plaintiff suffered head, rib, neck and back injuries.
The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant on all counts. 2009.
Richard Barnish v. Marbed Cab, Inc., et al
The Plaintiff was a disabled veteran who was operating his mechanized wheelchair in a crosswalk in downtown Boston at the intersection of Bromfield and Washington Street when he was struck by a cab.
The operator of the taxi testified the Plaintiff wheelchair pulled out directly in front of him as he was approaching the crosswalk. The Plaintiff claimed he was in the crosswalk and thrown into the air at the time of impact.
The Plaintiff alleged a closed head injury, abdominal injuries, and an aggravation of pre-existing spinal injuries. The Plaintiff had approximately $20,000.00 in medical bills and another $19,000.00 in incidental damages.
The Plaintiff’s expert witness’ opinion was attacked as too speculative. The Defendants’ Motion for a Directed Verdict at the Close of the Evidence was allowed on the issue of medical causation. 2008.
Rudy Diamond v. Hernan Lebell
This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident in Roxbury when the Defendant in rush hour traffic became trapped in an intersection and elected to run a red light rather than waiting for the traffic light to recycle.
The Plaintiff called two witnesses who claimed the Defendant ran the red light at a high rate of speed. The Plaintiff, a self-employed commercial contractor suffered head, shoulder and back injuries with $15,000.00 in medical bills, $10,000.00 in property/mechanical damages to his truck, and $20,000.00 in lost business income because of his disability.
The jury awarded $50.00 in damages for the Plaintiff, but found the Plaintiff 90% at fault negating the award. 2008.
Alexander Athanasiou and Caterina Raffa v. Paul McWhinnie and Karen McWhinnie, et al.
We secured a defense verdict in this Superior Court trial and recovered costs for our clients, Paul and Karen McWhinnie.
The Plaintiffs in this matter brought an action for intentional and negligent misrepresentation of fact, breach of contract, and rescission relating to a residential real estate transaction in South Easton, MA.
The Plaintiffs brought suit against the McWhinnies (the sellers) and both the sellers’ and buyers’ brokers and their respective agencies. The Plaintiffs alleged that they were misled about the nature of a neighbor across the street, a neighborhood eccentric.
The Plaintiffs alleged they were reassured at every turn by every party that the neighbor was an elderly man, who bothered no one and was nothing to worry about. However, the plaintiffs claimed incidents between the neighbor and neighborhood youths had been ongoing for at least 20 years and involved daily noise disruptions, violent threats, and object throwing.
The plaintiffs claim that this activity affected their ability to use and enjoy their home. The plaintiffs claim that they relied upon the statements of all parties in purchasing this home, which they claim they would not have done had they known of the incidents between the neighbor and the neighborhood youths. Plaintiffs sought recovery of the fair market value of the home, $469,000, plus $73,688 in interest on the purchase price, or in the alternative, recission of the sale.
We were able to secure dismissal of two of the five counts against the McWhinnies at summary judgment. At trial, the Defendants contended the information they gave about the neighbor was a true and accurate opinion, rather than a false statement of fact. The Defendants maintained that the “incidents” in the neighborhood were caused by the teenagers driving through, not the neighbor.
These incidents had been a problem in years past, but upon police stepping up enforcement, had quieted dramatically and ceased to be an issue for nearly two years prior to the sale of the house. Further, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs did not rely on the statements made by Mr. McWhinnie, since they were made after the purchase and sale agreement was signed.
The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were misled, if by any party, by their own broker. The co-defendants settled with the plaintiffs prior to trial. The jury returned a verdict for the remaining Defendants on all counts. The Court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the remaining defendants their costs. 2008
Bassam Qaqish v. Land Transportation, LLC et al
This was a general liability case involving a claimed acute brain injury to the plaintiff. Defendant was a national trucking company transporting a shipment of shopping carts from Richmond, VA to Marshalls Department Store in Newton, MA.
The co-defendant was the independent contractor driver who was operating the tractor trailer. Plaintiff claimed a stack of shopping carts was pushed off of the trailer onto him during the unloading process at which point his head was struck causing him to lose consciousness and fall to the ground.
Plaintiff claimed to have suffered a concussion, together with a hemiparesis of his left side. Plaintiff also claimed loss of function of his left arm and left leg. Plaintiff treated for one full year with inpatient hospital rehabilitation and outpatient physical therapy to bring back the use of his left leg and left arm.
The defense focused on plaintiff’s own comparative negligence in the unloading process together with a challenge of the alleged brain injury. The defendant driver had no memory of the accident.
The defense expert witness neurologist testified at the time of trial relative to the symptoms and signs of the plaintiff confirming a concussion and post-concussion syndrome, but no acute brain injury. MRIs, CAT scans and MRAs documented no bleeding, swelling or fluid build up in the plaintiff’s brain shortly after the accident.
Plaintiff claimed $40,000 in medical bills and $25,000 in lost wages. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant on all counts. 2008.
Kevin MacQuarrie v. Sakhoeut Kong
This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff claimed the defendant was running a red light in the early morning hours while transporting co-employees in a van to a Lowell factory. MacQuarrie suffered an ankle fracture and had $10,000 in medical bills.
Plaintiff was casted, and on crutches, claiming a long period of disability and permanent impairment. Plaintiff called three witnesses in the plaintiff’s case including the investigating police officer. Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence.
Defendant filed a Motion for Directed Verdict which was allowed by the Court. 2007.
Mahoney v. Galpin et al
We defended a deceased policyholder who was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs were passengers in the co-defendant’s vehicle at the time of the accident.
Following the commencement of the litigation, the elderly defendant passed away (unrelated to the accident) and was unavailable for trial. Plaintiffs suffered back and knee injuries as a result of the accident.
Expert witnesses were called on behalf of the defendant who testified at trial to a lack of continuing disability of either of the plaintiffs as a result of their alleged lower extremity injuries. The difficulty in defending this case was putting on a defense without a living defendant.
No deposition of the Defendant had been taken and the Defendant did not answer the Plaintiff’s Interrogatories prior to her death. The defense strategy was to utilize the testimony of both plaintiffs against the co-defendant at trial. Plaintiffs put in evidence approximately $25,000 in medical bills and lost wages.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of our client but did find against the co-defendant operator in the sum of $10,000. 2007.
Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company as Subrogee of Ann Weisman vs. Jon Modelevsky and Linda D. Modelevsky
The plaintiff homeowner brought a suit for trespass, conversion, and property damage as a result of the defendant allegedly cutting down a small grove of trees on the plaintiff’s property.
Plaintiff was an eccentric homeowner who was adamant the defendants were responsible for the destruction of her backyard gardening area. The defendants denied the allegations.
Aggressive discovery was conducted limiting the plaintiffs testimony and presenting substantial inconsistencies in the alleged dates, time and manner of the destruction of the property. The amount in controversy was approximately $25,000 for the alleged destruction of trees.
A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed and allowed by the Court. 2007.
Tomlinson v. Lewin
This was a classic motor vehicle intersection accident case in which each party claimed to have a green light. Plaintiff suffered neck, back and leg injuries.
Plaintiff claimed approximately $10,000 in medical bills and lost wages. At the time of trial, effective cross examination was used against the plaintiff who could not explain his whereabouts immediately before the accident.
The accident took place at approximately 2 a.m. near the Boston Common. Plaintiff claims he left work that night in Chelmsford at midnight but could not explain where he was for the two hours before the accident. Numerous inconsistencies were developed on cross examination as to the various versions of his path of travel from Chelmsford to Boston.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. 2007.
Hyde Square Chiropractic, Inc. v. Middlesex Insurance Company
The plaintiff chiropractic clinic filed a forty count lawsuit against our client, Middlesex Insurance Company, alleging violations of M.G.L. c. 90, §34M and M.G.L. c. 93A / c. 176D.
The plaintiffs sought to recover approximately $150,000 in unpaid medical bills incurred by underlying claimants after they were allegedly involved in motor vehicle accidents, attorneys’ fees and multiple damages pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A.
Middlesex Insurance declined each of the claims at issue in this lawsuit after it was determined the claims were fraudulent or after the insureds failed to cooperate with Middlesex Insurance Company’s investigation of their claims.
Although we repeatedly noticed the depositions of the owner of the clinic and the chiropractors who allegedly provided chiropractic treatment to the underlying claimants, these individuals repeatedly failed to appear for depositions.
As a result, we filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to attend depositions in the Suffolk Superior Court. The Court allowed the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the entire litigation. 2006.
Franklin Field Chiropractic, Inc. v. Middlesex Insurance Company
The plaintiff chiropractic clinic filed two separate civil actions against our client, Middlesex Insurance Company, in which it sought to recover approximately $130,000 in unpaid chiropractor’s bills, attorneys’ fees and multiple damages pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A.
Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims were denied due to the underlying claimants’ failure to attend Examinations Under Oath (EUO) or Independent Medical Examinations (IME). We filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal of each count referencing a claimant whose PIP claim had been denied for failure to attend an EUO or IME.
By obtaining numerous affidavits of claims representatives, attorneys and doctors, we were able to convince the Court that the claimants at issue were notified of their EUO or IME, yet failed to appear and thus breached their duty to cooperate with Middlesex Insurance Company’s investigation of the accident claim.
The Court allowed our Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, dismissing each count of the plaintiff’s Complaint where the underlying claimant failed to attend an EUO or IME. Additionally, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the remaining counts of the Complaint without any payment in settlement by Middlesex Insurance Company. 2006.
Egleston Square Chiropractic, Inc v. Middlesex Insurance Company
The plaintiff chiropractic clinic sought to recover unpaid medical bills, attorneys’ fees and treble damages pursuant to M.G.L. c. 90, §34 and c. 93A / c. 176. The Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claim of the underlying claimant was denied after she failed to attend two Independent Medical Examinations (IME) in breach of the duty to cooperate with Middlesex Insurance Company’s investigation of her PIP claim. We successfully argued a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Middlesex Insurance Company. 2006.
Mass Mobile Muscular Therapy, Inc. v. Middlesex Insurance Company
The plaintiff chiropractic clinic sought to recover unpaid therapy bills, attorneys’ fees and multiple damages pursuant to M.G.L. c. 90, §34, and M.G.L. c. 93A / c. 176D.
The underlying claimant’s claim for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits had been denied after she failed to appear for two Examinations Under Oath.
We successfully argued a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Middlesex Insurance Company. 2006.
Theresa Lappas, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of George Lappas, v. Arlington Center Auto Parts
We successfully argued a Motion for Summary Judgment in this asbestos litigation on behalf of our client, an auto parts store in Arlington, Massachusetts.
The plaintiff died from asbestosis and had special damages consisting of medical bills, funeral bills and lost wages in access of $100,00.00 Through the course of the litigation, no independent witness was able to identify our client with any certainty as a distributor of asbestos containing products to which the deceased plaintiff was exposed.
The alleged period of exposure was also inconsistent with the time period the Defendant was in the business of actually selling automotive parts containing asbestos. 2006.
Cheryl McDonough, Mother and Next Friend v. Michael Cook
The plaintiff filed suit against our homeowner client alleging significant injuries as a result of a dog bite sustained by her minor son. The plaintiff, a nine-year old boy, was chased down a dirt road and attacked by the defendant’s dog.
The plaintiff’s demand was $50,000. The Massachusetts strict liability dog bite statute was applicable to this case. We successfully arbitrated this case and were able to limit the arbitrator’s award to the plaintiff to $5,000. 2005.
Taramattie Doucette v. Panera Bread, LLC
We defended Panera Bread, LLC in a serious second degree burn injury case which occurred when one of our client’s employees tripped while carrying a five gallon urn, spilling hot coffee on the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s husband and two children also had claims for loss of consortium against our client. A stipulation as to liability was entered as a matter of record at trial. The plaintiff’s pre-trial demand was $185,000, and there was an offer of $55,000 which was rejected.
The jury returned a defense verdict for our client on all of the consortium claims and only awarded the injured plaintiff $10,000.00. 2005.
James McLaughlin, et al. v. John Ehwa
The plaintiffs were owners of a multi unit wood frame house in Waltham, MA. The plaintiffs alleged that they hired our client, John Ehwa, a licensed electrician, to determine the nature of an electrical problem they were having at their home.
Our client changed a fuse and further informed the plaintiffs that there were more serious problems with the electrical system which needed repair. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Ehwa “activated” a circuit which caused a fire at their home and resultant property damage in the amount of almost $71,000.
We took the position that the fire was caused as a result of the circuits in the building being overloaded by the plaintiffs’ tenants, and the improper splicing of wires to supply current to two illegal apartments by the plaintiffs themselves.
We tried this case to a conclusion and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. 2004.
Jennifer Howie v. Elsie Cab, et al.
The plaintiff, Jennifer Howie, was a Massport Ground Transportation Agent working at Logan International Airport in Boston, MA. The plaintiff alleged that her left foot and left ankle were run over by the operator of our client’s taxicab.
Ms. Howie underwent four surgeries on her lower extremities. The plaintiff’s pre-trial demand to settle this case was $150,000. We took the position that the plaintiff was not injured as a result of this incident but rather that she suffered from a long standing and serious pre-existing medical condition.
We tried this case to a conclusion and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. 2004.
We defended J.D. Scott, a subcontractor on a work site where a hotel was being erected. The plaintiff, the head of a subcontracting concrete company, alleged to have been struck on the head by a plank dropped by a Scott employee.
He sustained a brain injury which, according to two Massachusetts General Hospital physicians, had caused permanent partial disability and had incapacitated him from work over the past four years, as well as causing a myriad of other problems, i.e. loss of hearing.
The defendants took the position that if the accident occurred, the plaintiff was struck by a much smaller piece of wood that did not cause the injury complained of. We were also able to introduce into evidence a number of prior work-related injury claims by the plaintiff.
The jury deliberated for approximately two hours before returning a verdict for the Defendant. 2003
Angelina Hosford, et al vs. James Edwards, et al
The teenage Plaintiffs suffered lower extremity injuries requiring surgery as a result of a deck collapsing during an unsupervised graduation keg party at the Defendant’s residence.
The insured’s minor daughter was sued on the basis of negligence for allowing too many teenagers on the deck at the time of collapse as well as a negligent supervision claim against the parents for failing to be home at the time of the party.
The two Plaintiffs declined a combined offer of settlement of approximately $40,000.00. The jury returned with a verdict for the Defendants on all counts after deliberating for approximately half a day. 2001.
Barry Overton vs. Robert Caplette, et al
The Plaintiff suffered a head injury after being struck by a two (2) foot long icicle hanging from an allegedly defective gutter while delivering home heating oil to the insured residence.
The Plaintiff introduced approximately $10,000.00 in special damages. The case was tried resulting in a Defendants’ finding by the Court. 2001.
Pedestrian/Automobile accident resulting in severe brain and lower extremity injuries to the Plaintiff who incurred $65,000.00 in medical bills. The demand was $1.2 million going into trial.
The Plaintiff pedestrian was hit, vaulted onto the Defendant’s vehicle imbedding his head into the windshield and thrown to the sidewalk. The Plaintiff has emergency brain surgery to repair a subdural hematoma as well as multiple fractures to his lower extremities.
The jury deliberated for three (3) days. We tried this case to a defense verdict. 2000.
Kim vs. Yin
This was a general liability claim filed by the plaintiff tenant as a result of allegedly slipping and falling on unnaturally accumulated snow and ice on the defendant’s property.
The defendant was the landlord who owned the building. The plaintiff allegedly fell down an exterior flight of stairs, breaking multiple ribs and suffering an undocumented head injury.
The case was tried before a district court Judge who found for the defendant. 2000.
H. Albert vs. Schlossberg/Soloman Funeral Home, et al
We successfully defended a breach of contract, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress case against a funeral home arising out of a severely decomposed body.
The plaintiff alleged the funeral home was negligent in not retrieving the body in a timely fashion, not preparing the body in a professional manner and unethical conduct of funeral direction in violation of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations applicable to the funeral industry.
Expert witnesses including psychiatrists, embalmers and a non-party funeral director testified. The jury deliberated for half a day before returning a verdict on all counts for the defendant. 2000.
Mark Marston vs. Douglas Ferguson, et al
This case arose out of a beer brawl at the Peabody Elks during a charity fund raising event. The Plaintiff suffered a torn medial meniscus of his knee during the altercation and incurred approximately $15,000.00 in special damages.
The case was vigorously defended with numerous depositions establishing the Plaintiff as being the aggressor who was intoxicated. Discovery revealed a checkered employment history of the Plaintiff including being fired for hostile conduct as well as a criminal assault case.
Counsel after obtaining nominal settlement funds from the Co-Defendants on the basis of his dram shop claims against the beer distributor and the Elks simply gave up and dismissed the case against the insured Defendant without payment of any settlement funds. 2001.
We successfully defended this matter which resulted from an incident which occurred during construction of the Fleet Center.
The plaintiffs turned down an offer of $75,000.00 and the jury returned a verdict for our client defendant. 1999.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained a fatal brain injury when thrown to the floor of the public transit vehicle which we were defending. The plaintiff declined an offer of $100,000.00 prior to trial.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. 1999.
Marcia Tarrh vs. L’Elegance et Coffier, Inc.
This was a strict liability case filed by the plaintiff as a result of an allergic reaction which the plaintiff consumer suffered at the defendant hair salon. The plaintiff suffered loss of topical hair, swelling and substantial temporary disfigurement.
The case was tried before a jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the defendant salon. 1999.
We successfully argued a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of defendant D.R. Kenyon & Sons, Inc., a textile oven manufacturer pursuant to the Massachusetts Statute of Repose.
The plaintiffs were two severely burned employees as a result of a March 16, 1993 explosion and fire at Malden Mills. 1999.
Lovett vs. Liver
The plaintiff, a six-year old boy, entered the defendant’s property when visiting the abutting property owner at a picnic, and was injured when an abandoned garbage scowl lid closed shut on his three index fingers, severing two of the three finger tips.
The plaintiff was proceeding on an attractive nuisance statutory theory of liability (a/k/a the child trespasser statute). The case was tried before a judge and resulted in a finding for the defendant. 1999.
William Cohen vs. Wilson Lee
In this case we defended a general contractor builder against a claim by the plaintiff carpenter who fell from a roof suffering a non-union fracture of his femur. The plaintiff turned down a pretrial offer of $100,000.00. We obtained a defense verdict. 1998.
This case involved a quadruple fatality wherein our client, Meineke Muffler, had serviced the muffler of a Cherokee Jeep two weeks prior to the deaths of four young adults who were asphyxiated. The plaintiff operator rejected an offer of $250,000.00.
We obtained a jury verdict for the defendants. 1998.
Smith vs. Consigle
This was a general liability case in which we defended a home owner as a result of a negligence claim brought by a neighbor who was assisting the defendant in cutting down large, fifty-foot pine trees.
The plaintiff was crushed by one of the pine trees falling on him. The injuries suffered by the plaintiff were significant with a crushing of his left side, involving multiple fractures.
The jury deliberated for approximately a day and returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. 1998.
Troy Ware vs. David Paolino
This was a motor vehicle case in which the plaintiff alleged undocumented head injuries along with soft tissue injuries. The case was tried before a district court Judge who found for the defendant. 1998 .
We defended a head-on accident wherein our client collided with the plaintiff who died following a brief period of consciousness. The plaintiffs rejected a six-figure offer and the case went to trial. We obtained a jury verdict for the defendants. 1997.
Vali Seifi vs. Peter Frasca and Pawtucket Mutual Ins. Co.
We successfully defended a commercial landlord in a slip and fall accident on snow and ice. The plaintiff suffered a torn rotator cuff resulting in a permanent loss of function of the left shoulder of 55% based on the A.M.A. guidelines.
The plaintiff incurred approximately $15,000 in medical bills. A M.G.L. ch. 93A/176D count against the insurer was stayed at the beginning of litigation in Suffolk Superior Court. The defendant denied the presence of the unnatural condition, pleading the affirmative defense of fraud.
The jury deliberated for approximately four days, before returning a Defendant’s verdict. A subsequent post-trial motion to dismiss the M.G.L. ch. 93A/176D suit was allowed by the Court. 1997.
This case involved a double fatality wherein a newspaper delivery vehicle manufactured by Gruman Olson overturned. The passenger was ejected and made a products liability claim for improper restraints of passengers and improper warnings.
The plaintiffs left a six-figure offer on the table. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. 1996.
(781) 939-5840 csullivan@sullivanlitigation.com
Copyright 2019 · Sullivan & Associates, LLC