Case Report Number 1
Slip and Fall on Wet Floor
Type of Case - Negligence - Failure to Properly Protect Elderly Patron from Dangerously Wet Floor
Settlement - $725,000.00

History
A totally independent elderly woman who lived alone and drove entered a fast food restaurant by an entrance that did not have a weather carpet over the ceramic tiling flooring. Two other entrances did have such protective weather carpeting. Outside the restaurant there was a snow cover and a cleared walkway but it was wet and water was tracked in from the doorway our client used. As she entered, she slipped and fell fracturing her hip requiring surgery and external wire fixation to stabilize the fracture. After a lengthy hospital admission, she was transferred to a rehabilitation facility for several months and then, because it was feared she could not care for herself or get around easily, she was told she would have to move to a nursing home. The restaurant argued that the floor was not wet and not recently mopped. However, witnesses that we located disproved the restaurant’s initial argument. The restaurant then argued that water must have been tracked in from outside because of the weather conditions and here is where their failure to have a weather mat at each of the three entrances let to a successful resolution of the case. Our client specifically remembers there was no carpet at her entrance and the testimony of the weather carpet supply company verified that they had on occasion not brought enough mats for the multiple entrances. The case settled for $725,000.00. The client was then able to return home with the settlement providing for help at home, a hospital bed and other structural changes to allow her to move about in her home. Finally, since the client was already receiving Medicare, we were able to draft a special type of trust that allows her to benefit from the settlement monies without losing her hard earned social security Medicare benefits.

Case Report Number 2
Suicide Attempt was Preventable
Type of Case - Negligence - Failure to Protect Disabled Student
Settlement - $300,000.00

History
An eighteen year old disabled residential student of a non-profit school jumped approximately 30 feet from the roof of the school building in an apparent attempt to kill herself. The mission of the school was to provide educational services to adolescence and young adults who were challenged physically as well as by problems such as childhood abuse and mental illness. Prior to living at the school, our client was an inpatient at a local state mental hospital because she twice climbed on the roof of her home with the intention of jumping. On the day of accident, she became upset after interacting with other students and began screaming, hitting and otherwise acting out. The staff controlled her by using a one-to-one staff to student ratio. After about thirty minutes, staff believed that the student had calmed down. The staff member then agreed to take our client on a walk around the campus. As the two exited the school building, the student ran up a wide wooden set of stairs used as a fire escape, ducked under the railing and went onto the flat roof of the school. The student stood at the edge of the roof 30 feet in the air and stated that she was going to count to 60 and jump. The staff member, while positioned at the top of the fire escape, attempted to try to talk her down but without success. When the student finished her count, she said good-by and jumped feet first from the roof.

The student suffered multiple mid-back fractures from the fall. Because the spine fractures were unstable, she was transported to a teaching hospital in Boston where a neurosurgeon stabilized her mid-back with a titanium surgical mesh cage and held in place by a plate and screws.

The case settled at a mediation -- a structured settlement conference -- after we were able to show that school employees utterly failed to meet the requisite standard of care for treating and keeping safe a student with the propensity to try to hurt herself. The staff member assigned to our client was negligent because she let the student be more than an arm’s length away while escorting her. We also argued that the school was negligent because it failed to block access to the fire escape stairs from outside the building. The case settled for $300,000.00 present value. The client’s settlement was used to purchase an annuity to provide her a stream of income for the remainder of her life. The case was also significant for the fact that we were able to defeat the so-called “charitable immunity defense” which limits recovery by injured persons against schools and other Massachusetts non-profit organizations to only $20,000.00.

Case Report Number 3
Crush Injury was Foreseeable
Type of Case - Workers Compensation Accident
Settlement - $1,000,000.00

History
Our client worked as a maintenance person for a large Massachusetts defense contractor in one of its manufacturing plants. On the day of his accident, our client was required to lower an industrial bucket filled with water and mop from one level in the building to another. In order to assist employees in moving material from one level to another, the employer had installed a scissors lift. A scissors lift is a flat piece of steel powered by a hydraulic ram to raise and lower it. The scissors lift was designed and manufactured by a corporation other than the employer.

Our client stood next to the lift and used an on/off switch attached to a wire to operate the lift. As the lift began to descend, the bucket began to roll. In an effort to stop the bucket, our client stepped forward to brace it and placed his foot under the lift as it descended to the floor. The lift came down and crushed the plaintiff’s left foot.

As a result of the crush injury, the plaintiff suffered reflex sympathetic dystrophy. This is a very painful condition that involves the soft tissues and nerves of the foot. One suffering from this injury is caused excruciating pain when attempting to stand on the foot or weight bear. As a result of this accident, the plaintiff became permanently non-weight bearing and now either uses crutches or a wheelchair.
We took the case to trial on the theory that the lift was unreasonably dangerous and defective. Specifically, we argued to the jury that the scissors lift failed to have “telltales” or any other mechanism that would easily warn a user that the bottom of the lift was approaching one’s foot. We also argued to the jury that the on/off control attached by a wire to the lift also rendered the machine unreasonably dangerous because it allowed one to stand in a zone of danger while operating the lift.

The case was fully tried and went to the jury. During jury deliberations of several hours, we settled the case for $1,000,000.00. The case is significant for the fact that it is an example of us enforcing the rights of an injured worker by getting damages for him beyond those afforded under the Massachusetts Workers Compensation law. If an employee is injured on the job, in addition to bringing a workers compensation claim, he or she may also bring a lawsuit against someone other than his/her employer if that other person caused the injury. These cases are known as “third party workers compensation” cases. The third party in this case was the manufacturer of the scissors lift. The Massachusetts Workers Compensation Law limited the plaintiff’s recovery to medical bills and a portion of his lost wages. However, by suing the manufacturer of the lift, we were able to obtain a substantial settlement for the plaintiff which included damages for loss of use of his foot and for severe emotional distress.

Case Report Number 4
Toddler Struck by Car Resulting in Permanent Burns
Type of Case - Negligence - Failure to Observe Pedestrian
Settlement - $130,000.00

History
While visiting a strip mall, a two and half year old boy suddenly ran from his seven year old sister and onto a parking lot where a pizza delivery vehicle was backing out of a parking space. The child was struck by the car. We were able to demonstrate through depositions of witnesses and of the defendant operator that he never looked in his rearview mirror before he placed his vehicle in reverse and backed up striking the child, knocking him over and causing the hot exhaust and muffler system to come in contact with his chest and neck. In addition to obtaining the full amount of the insurance policy from the automobile involved, an additional claim was made against the pizza shop owner for negligently employing the driver. The case settled for $130,000.00. The additional monies obtained from the pizza shop business insurance policy allowed for a sufficient structured settlement for the child assisting with his care at present and providing money for college in the future.

Case Report Number 5
Alleged Back Injury
Type of Case - Maritime Personal Injury Case
Defense Verdict for Boat Owner

History
In this case the Firm represented the defendant who was the owner of a 95 foot commercial fishing trawler. The plaintiff who sued our client was an experienced commercial fisherman who worked as a deck hand aboard the vessel. The plaintiff alleged that the Captain ordered the three member crew to clean, break down and neatly pile a retrieved fishing net together with all of its associated gear. The combined weight of this net and gear was estimated to be 1,000 pounds. Plaintiff claimed that upon lifting the third section of the gear, he lost feeling in his legs and felt pain in his back. Sometime thereafter the plaintiff was diagnosed with a herniated disk in his lower back that necessitated surgery. The plaintiff complained that he could never go to sea again. We denied that our client was responsible for the plaintiff’s injury and that the boat was fit for her intended purpose at all times. We proved at trial that the plaintiff never complained of any back pain at the time of the alleged accident and it wasn’t until several days later that the claim was made. All other crew members testified at trial and none of them supported the plaintiff’s version of the accident. As such, the jury was convinced that our client was not legally responsible for any injuries suffered by the plaintiff and returned a defense verdict completely exonerating our client.