Court Opinion

ID: 9961994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 14:05:15.994024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:38.649172
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  23-P-98

                              GEORGE J. VAZQUEZ

                                       vs.

                            KAREN T. GOSCIMINSKI.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       On October 8, 2016, the parties were involved in a motor

 vehicle accident within the Golden Nozzle Car Wash, located on

 Russell Street in Hadley.        The plaintiff, George Vazquez,

 sustained injuries to his back and neck.            Approximately three

 years later, he brought this action against Karen Gosciminski,

 the driver of the other vehicle.          The complaint alleged that

 Gosciminski was responsible for the accident and sought damages

 for, among other things, Vazquez's injuries, medical expenses,

 and lost wages.

       Following a two-day trial in the Superior Court, a jury

 returned a verdict in favor of Vazquez and awarded him $22,500
in damages. 1   Vazquez appeals, 2 claiming that he is entitled to a

new trial because his lawyer committed legal malpractice in

numerous respects and, "due to personal conflicts and a

personality clash, squandered [his] opportunity for a fair[,]

impartial jury trial."

     We conclude there is no basis on which Vazquez is entitled

to a new trial.     First, to the extent that Vazquez argues his

attorney committed malpractice, a claim for which we discern no

support, the proper remedy is not to grant a new trial.     A

malpractice claim against an attorney is an independent cause of

action that Vazquez would have to pursue against his attorney

separately.     Second, Vazquez's arguments that certain medical

records related to his treatment were improperly admitted and a

police report prepared in connection with the accident was

improperly excluded are raised for the first time on appeal and,

therefore, are waived.     See Boss v. Leverett, 484 Mass. 553,

562-563 (2020).     In any event, even if we were to consider them,

     1 The judgment reflects that the amount awarded by the jury
was reduced by $2,866.22 to account for personal injury
protection (PIP) coverage. Prejudgment interest in the amount
of $5,438.91 and $350 in statutory costs were added to the
award, and a final judgment in the amount of $25,422.69 was
entered on December 8, 2021.

     2 Approximately one year after judgment entered, Vazquez
filed a motion "for release from judgment" pursuant to Mass. R.
Civ. P. 60 (b) (2) and (6), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), which was
denied. He did not file a notice of appeal from the order and,
therefore, nothing related to that order is before us.

                                   2
neither argument has merit.    Vazquez's medical records were

properly admitted in evidence under G. L. c. 233, § 79G, and

Mass. G. Evid. § 803(6)(C)(ii) (2023), and there was no error

arising from the failure to introduce the police report where

the report contained no information about the accident that had

not been presented to the jury. 3

                                        Judgment affirmed.

                                        By the Court (Vuono,
                                          Massing & Toone, JJ. 4),

                                        Assistant Clerk

Entered:    April 22, 2024.

     3 To the extent that we do not address Vazquez's other
contentions, they "have not been overlooked. We find nothing in
them that requires discussion." Department of Revenue v. Ryan
R., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 380, 389 (2004), quoting Commonwealth v.
Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 78 (1954).

     4   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                    3