Sunday, March 9, 2008

Busy Week for Boston Med Mal Firm

Boston malpractice law firm Lubin & Meyer had two verdicts make headlines this week. Both are considered to be among the largest verdicts for 2008 in NH and MA respectively...

MANCHESTER, NH – (March 8, 2008) Blinded man awarded $1.75m via New Hampshire Union Leader
"The failure of a Concord emergency room surgeon to stabilize an accident victim before surgery resulted in one of the largest jury awards for medical malpractice in New Hampshire. A Merrimack County Superior Court jury Thursday awarded Randolph Hinz, 42, of Warner, $1.75 million plus about $200,000 in interest because he has been blind since the emergency surgery, according to his attorney, Suzanne McDonough of Lubin and Meyer PC of Boston."
An appeal is likely, according to a Boston Globe report.

BOSTON, MA - (March 4, 2008) 2 doctors found negligent in death via Boston Globe
"A Middlesex County jury awarded $14.5 million yesterday to the family of a 30-year-old Chelmsford woman who died the day after thyroid surgery at Brockton Hospital from uncontrolled bleeding that the plaintiff's lawyers said stemmed from air trapped in her abdomen.... After deliberating less than five hours, a Superior Court jury in Lowell concluded that two surgeons and their medical practice were negligent ... said [plaintiff's attorney] Robert Higgins..."
The Boston Globe article reported that "the award will undoubtedly be one of the biggest in a medical malpractice case in Massachusetts this year, if not the biggest, said David L. Yas, publisher and editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, which monitors such awards."

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Massachusetts: Medical Malpractice Statute of Repose Doesn't Apply to Fraud Claim

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports that a lawsuit against a doctor and nurse can go forward...
"A doctor and a nurse who allegedly falsified medical records to hide evidence of malpractice during the delivery of a child could be sued even though the seven-year statute of repose for medical negligence claims had run, the Appeals Court has ruled. The defendant doctor and nurse argued that the core of the fraud claim involved allegations of improper medical treatment and was thus subject to G.L.c. 231, Sect. 60D, and G.L.c. 260, Sect. 4, the med-mal statutes of repose."
The appeals court stated: "Although statutes of repose are meant to protect health care providers from having to defend claims long after evidence is lost, witnesses have disappeared, or memories failed, …they do not preclude the filing of separate, otherwise valid, causes of action directly addressing alleged fraudulent behavior that allowed the invocation of such statutory protections in the first instance..." according the the Lawyers Weekly article. (See full article.)

See full opinion at: Chace, et al. v. Curran, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 11-026-08.