Boston Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Mass High Tech Business News recently published an article by Parker | Scheer LLP founding partner, Barry S. Scheer, Even Startups Need Severance Agreements. "As a business attorney, I am often asked by struggling startup company executives, faced with having to lay off employees, whether they are obligated to make severance payments." Scheer acknowledges "there is no legal obligation to make severance payments" but that "severance payments and severance agreements generally provide intangible benefits and social utility that far outweigh their cost -- even to struggling companies. "This," he writes, "is especially true for technology companies...."

Please click here here to read the full piece.

A Massachusetts Superior Court judge (Fahey, J.) recently denied an attempt by the French-based ski manufacturer, Salomon SA, to dismiss a claim brought by a Massachusetts resident for injuries suffered by him when the ski binding failed while skiing in Utah. Salomon SA argued that because they had no ties or presence in Massachusetts, they should not be compelled to defend an action brought in Massachusetts. Susan Bourque, of Parker | Scheer LLP, argued on behalf of plaintiff that the claim against Salomon SA should be allowed to proceed in Massachusetts because Salomon SA maintained a website that directed consumers to authorized retail locations in Massachusetts where consumers could purchase Salomon goods.

In siding with the plaintiff, Judge Fahey ruled that because Salomon directed consumers to Massachusetts retail locations, they (Salomon) were transacting business in the Commonwealth within the meaning of the Massachusetts Long Arm Statute. The issue: Could a website alone confer jurisdiction upon an out-of-state corporation - was the first of its kind decided in Massachusetts. This decision follows the expanding trend of evaluating the "interactivity" of a company's website in determining whether or not the corporation was targeting consumers within a particular state.

Click here to read more about this case from an article that appeared in Mass Lawyer's Weekly.

Parker | Scheer LLP is pleased to announce that a decision, favorable to our client, has been cited by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly as among the "Most Important Decisions of 2011." The motion, which involved issues of insurance coverage law, was successfully argued by Managing Partner, Eric J. Parker. Parker Scheer associate, Lisa Scalisi, researched and drafted the plaintiff's brief. To read more about this case, click here.

The Las Vegas office of Parker | Scheer LLP, Parker Scheer Lagomarsino, was cited in an article published today in the Las Vegas Review-Journal about a former Wynn Resorts Ltd. employee who has brought suit against the company for unpaid overtime compensation.

Parker Scheer Lagomarsino has been retained by Richard Derek Olsen, a former Wynn Las Vegas corporate investigator, who claims he was not paid for hours spent providing security for company executives and celebrities, including Chairman and CEO Steve Wynn.

For more information please read the full article here.

Written by Attorney Susan M. Bourque

On September 9, 2011, in a matter of first impression for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United State District Court (Zobel, D.J.) held that a mandatory arbitration clause, agreed to by a decedent, is not binding on the estate in connection with its claim for wrongful death. The case was brought, in part, by the parents of Lisa Tam Chung who was killed while on a student tour in Mexico organized by the defendant, StudentCity.com. The Chungs alleged that the defendant tour operator was negligent and legally responsible for the wrongful death of their daughter.

The defendant sought to dismiss the case citing the mandatory arbitration clause agreed to by Lisa when she booked the trip using the on-line registration form which stated, in pertinent part, "that any dispute...concerning my Trip, the Trip itself or any claim for damages due to injury or death which occurs on the Trip shall be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration." Based on this provision, the defendant insisted that the plaintiff was compelled to arbitrate their claim rather than have it heard by a jury. The Court disagreed, stating that because the wrongful death statute is not derivative of the decedent's claim, it would "be inconsistent with fundamental tenets of contract law to nonetheless hold that those beneficiaries, who did not sign an arbitration agreement, are bound by the decision of the decedent, whose estate holds no interest in this claim, to sign the arbitration clause." The Court relied upon similar holdings in other jurisdictions where this issue has been addressed.

This decision will have significant impact on the growing trend to include mandatory arbitration clauses in Nursing Home Contracts. Such clauses, which have been upheld as valid in Massachusetts, still apply to non-death cases where the plaintiff claiming injury is the one who signed the agreement. However, in the most serious of cases, where negligence is alleged to have caused a death, the Chung case may help to level the playing field by allowing families to pursue their wrongful death claims through the court system where the case can be decided by a jury of their peers.

Continue reading "Mandatory Arbitration Clauses - 'Til Death Do Us Arbitrate?" »

PRESS RELEASE, October 14, 2011, -- Eric J. Parker, co-founder and Managing Partner of Parker | Scheer LLP was recently appointed by Massachusetts Bar Association President Richard P. Campbell, to Co-Chair a task force that was created in response to law school grads having difficulty finding jobs in the current Massachusetts economy.

The task force will examine root causes for the perceived over-supply of graduates, along with strategies for finding solutions to benefit graduates, the Massachusetts legal system, and the affected community.

Click here to read more about the task force and quotes from Mr. Parker in the latest issue of the Massachusetts Lawyers Journal.

In today's mobile economy it is not unusual for a person hired in the Midwest to be assigned temporarily to work out of state. While one might think that this limits such an employee to workers' compensation benefits for the state in which he was hired or where his employer is located, this is not necessarily true.

Massachusetts law provides that it has jurisdiction over workplace injuries that occur within its borders regardless of the residence of the injured employee, or his employer. As Massachusetts benefits are amongst the highest in the country, it is essential that an employee injured in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts while working for an out-of-state employer consider filing his claim here.

Massachusetts also has jurisdiction over cases involving workplace injuries in other states if the injured employee was hired in Massachusetts. Several years ago, a New Hampshire resident working for a Pennsylvania corporation was injured while working in New Jersey. Under these facts one might assume that Massachusetts has absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever. This was not the case, however, as that employee was hired in Massachusetts. In that case, the injured worker's weekly workers' compensation benefits increased by more than 35% over the payments made by the workers' compensation insurance company under New Jersey law after his claim was filed in Massachusetts.

Likewise, if an injured worker, hired in another state, is the victim of a workplace injury in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts rates will apply provided that a claim is filed in Massachusetts. These principles are applicable regardless of the nature of the claim or injury. If an employee is tragically killed in a Massachusetts workplace accident, his survivors are entitled to bring a claim in the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents seeking the typically higher Massachusetts workers' compensation rates.

The rate of weekly workers' compensation benefits are not the only reason that an out-of- state employee, injured in Massachusetts, may seek to establish jurisdiction in Massachusetts. Most states prohibit lawsuits against employers for work place injuries or death otherwise covered by workers' compensation. Massachusetts provides that workers' compensation payments, including those for medical expenses, are doubled "If the employee is injured by reason of the serious and willful misconduct of an employer or of any person regularly intrusted with and exercising the powers of superintendence." This involves a heightened standard, but is often applicable in situations in which an employer fails to provide proper safety equipment, fall protection, or forces an employee to use equipment known to be unsafe.

As in all instances involving serious injury or death, it is advisable to contact an attorney who is experienced in these complicated jurisdictional questions. To speak with a highly experienced workers' compensation lawyer, click here, or telephone Parker Scheer LLP seven days a week, toll free at 886-414-0400. There is no fee charged to discuss your case, and all information furnished, will be kept strictly confidential.

The family of an 8 year old boy recently obtained a $4.6 million settlement with the maker of a clamp used during a botched circumcision, according to an article appearing in the Los Angeles Times.

The boy's penis was partially amputated when he was circumcised as an infant. The accident is one of many examples of injuries caused by circumcisions around the country.

Parker | Scheer LLP has handled numerous botched circumcision cases on behalf of children who suffered partial or total amputation of the distal penis following circumcisions, including one resulting in a $1.26 million structured settlement for the child.

In that case, a pediatrician who performed the circumcision inadvertently amputated a portion of the infant's glans penis. The doctor used sutures to repair the damage, leading to the loss of tissue. The pediatrician did not recommend surgical repair by a pediatric surgeon, which if it had been performed, would likely have improved the cosmetic result and reduced the degree of a condition involving the abnormal placement of the urethra opening on the penis.

The device used for the circumcision in the case we handled - the Mogen clamp - was also used on the boy in the recent case in California. The Mogen clamp was first invented in 1954 by a Brooklyn rabbi who wanted to standardize circumcision equipment. The Mogen clamp loosens the foreskin, then pulls it through the clamp and clips it with a single cut. Some think the Mogen clamp has a design flaw because it doesn't allow users to see what they're cutting.

The other two devices commonly used for circumcisions - the Gomco clamp and Plastibell circumcision instrument - are two-part systems designed to protect the tip of the penis during the procedure.

Approximately 56 percent of boys born in the U.S. are circumcised in hospitals, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC does not track the number of circumcisions performed in religious ceremonies, such as the Jewish bris .

Miltex, Inc., the defendant in the California botched circumcision case, stopped distributing the Mogen clamp in 1994. In 2000, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a public health notice concerning the Mogen and Gomco clamps after receiving about 20 injury reports annually since 1996, including lacerations, hemorrhaging, amputations, and urethral damage. The FDA did not recall the clamps, but warned users on the proper use of the devices.

Despite continued reports of injuries involving the Mogen clamp, the device remains popular among physicians who perform circumcisions.

Continue reading "Botched circumcision leads to $ 4.6M settlement" »

Eric Parker, managing partner of Parker | Scheer LLP, recently sat down with the radio show hosts of Mind Your Own Business (MYOB) on WBNW 1120AM, Rick Brutti and Jeffrey Davis, to discuss the legal industry today and how a boutique law firm like Parker | Scheer LLP continues to be successful.

Please click below to listen to the audio.

Eric J. Parker, Parker | Scheer LLP founding partner, was recently interviewed by Boston Business Journal's Lisa van der Pool. The article was published in the BBJ's "Outside the Box" section, a tribute to Parker's original mindset. As the interview illustrates, Parker is a compassionate and ground breaking personal injury attorney, whose own happiness is founded on the happiness of others.

The article is from the Boston Business Journal, Vol. 31 o. 25, July 15021, 2011.

Please enjoy an abbreviated version of the interview below, and find the full the version posted to the personal injury section of the Parker | Scheer LLP website.

What do you think of the term ambulance chaser?
I hate the expression and I hate the perception. I think it's unfounded. We're a trial firm that helps small and midsize business and individuals, in a crisis.

When is it not a good idea to sue a hospital?
I would say it's a fair statement that we probably turn down 80 to 90 percent of the medical malpractice cases that we review every year. There's a wide-spread misconception in the difference between medical malpractice and an unfortunate medical result. For all the people who are critical of plaintiff's attorneys ... if they ever knew how much the plaintiff's bar does to spare litigation. We do more explaining and sit-downs with people who want to sue. We have no interest in pursuing baseless cases.

Definition of a good day?
When I come home and I hear that my daughters or my wife got good news.

Toughest business decision?
Starting my own firm. I was made partner at one of the most wonderful trial firms, Sarrouf Law LLP in Boston. I left to give it a go on my own ... and it was the best decision.

Pet peeves?
One thing that's driving me nuts is watching the number of lawyers that Massachusetts is pouring into the legal system without regard to the economy. You have no idea no many unemployed graduated I've interviewed.

Traits that give you a competitive edge?
Probably an extreme case of empathy.

Three greatest passions?
Getting to the truth, learning something new every day and being a good friend.

Attorneys Eric Parker and Susan Bourque, of Parker|Scheer LLP, successfully settled a case involving an aggressive animal attack upon a young woman for $550,000. The plaintiff, a 23 year old female, suffered significant facial trauma resulting in extensive reconstructive surgeries, scarring, and emotional distress following a dog bite.

The plaintiff was invited to the defendant's home to visit the dog one last time before the dog was scheduled to be euthanized on account of a prior attack. While the plaintiff was aware the dog was to be euthanized, the plaintiff was never told why the dog was being put down. She and two other friends were asked by the defendant to kneel down for a picture with the dog, and while posing the plaintiff was suddenly bitten in the face, severing a substantial portion of her lips.

The plaintiff underwent same day surgery to re-attach portions of salvaged tissue and skin-grafts to reconstruct her lips. Subsequent surgeries were required in order to reshape her lips and reduce scar tissue around the face and nose. Despite the successes of these surgeries, the plaintiff was left with visible scarring around her nose and lips. Due to the severe trauma, the plaintiff also developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety resulting in additional medical expenses.

Read the case report here.

Continue reading "Parker|Scheer LLP Recovers $550,000 on Behalf of Victim of Dog Attack" »

Parker | Scheer LLP partners and associates will be participating in the 2011 Lawyers Have Heart 5K Road Race & Summer Celebration to benefit the American Heart Associaton. The 4th Annual Race and Summer Celebration will be held at the Bank of America Pavilion on Boston's waterfront. After the race there will be a Summer Celebration for the runners and sponsors and volunteers.

According to partner Susan Bourque, a Boston Marathon Runner for 2011, and captain of the Parker | Scheer LLP running team, "We are proud to support the American Heart Association and celebrate all of the runners, donors and volunteers who have accepted the challenge to help fight heart disease and stroke."

For Immediate Release June 3, 2011

Contact: Heather M. Cox
Voice: 617-886-0500 x1014
Fax: 617-886-0100
hmc@parkerscheer.com

PARKER | SCHEER LLP NAMED 2011 LAW FIRM OF THE YEAR

BOSTON. Parker | Scheer LLP, a leading civil litigation law firm with offices in Boston, Providence, and Las Vegas, was named 2011 "Law Firm of the Year, by the editors of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. The award was announced and presented before an audience of over 300 at the paper's annual awards ceremony, co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Bar Association, at the Hynes Convention Center in Boston on June 2, 2011. Eric J. Parker, the firm's co-founder and managing partner, accepted the award on behalf of the firm.

We are pleased to announce that Parker | Scheer LLP has has received a nomination for "Law Firm of the Year" by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. The announcement was made in the newspaper's May edition in connection with the its upcoming event: "Excellence in The Law."

The 2011 award ceremomy will be held at Hynes Convention Center in Boston, Massachusetts, on June 2, 2011.

Parker | Scheer LLP is proud to share this recognition with fellow nominees: Ropes & Gray and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

According to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, the event recognizes "the very best of the legal profession".

Parker | Scheer LLP with offices in Boston, Providence, and Las Vegas has practice groups concentrating in complex personal injury, business law and litigation, real estate, family law, workers compensation, and criminal defense.

Nine months after DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, issued a voluntary recall of its defective product, ASR XL Acetabular Hip Resurfacing System, it is evident that DePuy's reaction to the product's defects may have been a classic example of: "too little, too late."

While much of the controversy surrounding the DePuy ASR XL System, a product designed for patients undergoing total hip replacement, has centered on the adverse health effects of metallic debris that the product deposits in a patient's body, an equally concerning issue exists: the likelihood that the implanted device will fail.

A recent study by the British Orthopaedic Association revealed that patients who have been implanted with a DePuy ASR System will experience a revision rate of between 21% after just four years, to 49% after just six years. This means that after only six years post implantation, as many as half of all implanted patients will need a second surgery to remove and replace the failed DePuy ASR System.

This new study conflicts with the information that originally accompanied the DePuy recall, where DePuy claimed that only about 12% of patients who had received the device would require revision surgery.

This is just one of many questionable representations made by DePuy. For example, DePuy had represented that the DePuy ASR XL System was a safe medical device, substantially similar to devices already approved for use in the United States market, thereby allowing DePuy to speed the product through the FDA regulation process, bypassing the rigorous safety testing generally required of new medical devices. In marketing the device to orthopedic surgeons, DePuy represented that the DePuy ASR XL System was simple to implant, reduced the risk of dislocation, and was ideal for patients will smaller body frames and those who lead a more active lifestyle. When DePuy finally recalled the product, it claimed to have done so promptly after receiving "new" data relating to the DePuy ASR XL System revision rate. However, all of these representations were made with knowledge of substantial evidence to the contrary. In fact, DePuy had been aware of warnings contained in studies and medical literature relating to "metal-on-metal" devices such as the ASR XL System years before the August 2010 recall. Nevertheless, DePuy continued to sell the DePuy ASR XL System for implantation in patients requiring total hip replacement.

Based on the new data, DePuy's sale of an unsafe product will have resulted in up to an estimated 46,500 revision surgeries, representing half of the 93,000 DePuy ASR Systems sold worldwide. To date, approximately 700 lawsuits have been filed in the United States federal courts against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson by patients who have received and been injured by the defective device. Additional lawsuits have been filed in New Jersey and California state courts.

As of January 2011, Johnson & Johnson had arranged a $922 million set-aside for litigation costs and potential settlements associated with the recalled DePuy ASR XL System. However, given the serious injuries caused by the device and the growing number of lawsuits, it is anticipated that the company may end up paying much more to compensate victims.

Continue reading "New Study Confirms DePuy Hip Implant Product Recall Came Too Late" »