Boston Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

The Reviewing Board of the Department of Industrial Accidents recently issued a significant decision that recognizes that an employee who suffers a psychiatric injury that arises out of and in the course of his or her employment may be entitled to permanent loss of function under the Section 36 of the Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Act.

Cases involving psychiatric injuries arise in a number of different contexts. Employees subjected to significant work-related stress often fall victim to emotional injuries that are truly disabling. For reasons that few, if any, are able to articulate, insurers are adamantly resistant to the payment of benefits associated with psychiatric injury. Much of the skepticism associated with this type of injury reflects society's lack of appreciation of the impact of workplace stress upon an individual, and the seemingly subjective nature of such conditions.

Psychiatric response to physical injury is another example of a compensable condition for which workers' compensation benefits may be payable. Understandably, people who are victims of catastrophic injury often experience great difficulty in accepting the limitations of the impairments caused by those injuries, and the effects of the physical injuries upon their lives in total. It is more understandable how a healthy, vibrant, and ambitious person would fall prey to an emotional injury after receiving a significant physical injury that deprives him or her of the ability to pursue his or her livelihood. Once again, however, society's refusal to appreciate the effects of psychiatric disability often results in resistance by insurers to these claims.

The decision by the Department of Industrial Accidents reflects acknowledgment that the Workers' Compensation Act not only recognizes the compensability of psychiatric injury, but also has elevated it to a stature that is on equal footing with physical injury. This is not to say that the department has lowered its standards for the award of benefits associated with psychiatric and psychiatric injury, but rather has ratified the notion that psychiatric injury can have truly devastating, permanent consequences.

The standard associated with proof of the compensability of a work-related psychiatric injury was not altered by this recent decision. Individuals who make a claim for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act as result of psychiatric injury continue to be held to a higher standard than one who makes a claim for a physical injury.

Claims for disability payments and/or medical treatment for psychiatric injury are compensable only if "the predominant contributing cause of such disability is an event or series of events occurring within any employment." This heightened standard reflects the skepticism associated with proof that oftentimes is felt to be subjective in nature and can be contrasted with disability resulting from an aggravation of a pre-existing physical condition which is compensable, provided the aggravation is a major, but not necessarily the predominant, cause of disability. This lower standard for physical injury reflects society's continued reluctance to place physical injury on the same level as a psychiatric injury. This decision of the Reviewing Board is a major step forward in the recognition that there can be permanent, long-term effects associated with a psychiatric injury.

The Reviewing Board decision did not alter claims for psychiatric care and/or disability where a physical injury has also occurred. It is common for victims of serious work-related injuries to suffer emotional consequences as they deal with depression caused by an injury's chronic pain or the frustration of the long, difficult road to recovery that ends with permanent impairment. The treatment required to address these issues is unaffected by the decision. However, if there is permanent psychiatric loss of function, a claim for that loss of function is now undeniably possible.

In order to pursue such a loss of function claim under G.L. c. 152, §36 (1) (j), the injured employee must follow the guidelines that are discussed in Shoshana Yeshaiau v. Mt. Auburn Hospital, DIA No. 016890-05. In essence, the injured worker must provide a medical report that contains an opinion "in accordance with standards set forth in the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment" (See 6th edition of the AMA Guides, which contains a chapter entitled "Mental and Behavioral Disorders").

G.L. c. 152, §36 (1) (j) limits the benefits for a permanent psychiatric loss of function to no more than thirty-two weeks of the average weekly wage in the Commonwealth on the date of injury. Currently, the maximum award is $37,537.92, applicable only if one suffers a 100% permanent psychiatric loss of function.

Families regularly engage Parker Scheer to investigate and pursue wrongful death cases in which a family member was killed in a motor vehicle accident, in a construction accident, while using a product, or a result of substandard medical treatment. The first step in being able to truly investigate the claim and obtain the necessary information about the decedent is having the appropriate person appointed as the Representative of the Estate. Historically, this was always a cumbersome process which took several months and often delayed the ability to investigate the case in a timely manner. In certain instances, it also prevented the family from obtaining available insurance proceeds to cover funeral and burial expenses or accessing necessary life insurance proceeds.

A little over a year ago, however, on March 31, 2012, the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code (MUPC) took effect and changed the landscape as to how certain estates are probated in the Commonwealth. The MUPC now allows for the administration of estates through informal proceedings. Informal probate proceedings speed up the process by which a Personal Representative is appointed in cases where the beneficiaries all agree about the handling of the estate. In addition, a Personal Representative can be appointed seven days after applying for the court's approval, as opposed to having the process delayed by the waiting periods in the formal probate proceedings. Formal administration often is selected in instances where the person seeking appointment believes there will be a problem administering the estate or the estate has complex issues that will require judicial assistance. In addition, a formal probate proceeding is required if the surviving spouse or another heir or devisee is either a minor or incapacitated unless he or she is represented by a guardian or conservator.

Seven days prior to filing a Petition for Informal Probate, the petitioner must provide written notice of the petitioner's intent to all interested persons who have not signed a waiver of notice form. Once the seven-day notice requirement has passed, the petitioner must file all necessary forms depending on whether the decedent died with or without a will. The required forms include the following: (1) Petition for Informal Probate of Will/Appointment of Personal Representative; (2) Certified copy of Death Certificate; (3) Notice of Informal Probate & Return of Service; (4) Order of Informal Probate of Will and/or Appointment of Personal Representative; (5) Military Affidavit (unless assented to by all interested persons); and (6) Bond. To the extent that the decedent died with a will, the original will must also be filed. Additionally, the following forms may be applicable: (1) Renunciation of Right to Appointment and/or Nomination of Personal Representative; (2) Affidavit (as to domicile/cause of death); (3) Proof of Guardianship/Conservatorship; (4) Waiver of Notice; and (5) Assent.

The petitioner then submits the informal proceeding forms with the required fee to the probate court. If the submission is complete, the probate court will issue a docket number. The Petitioner should be certain not to forget to include a Magistrate's Order in the packet. Informal proceeding forms are reviewed by a magistrate, and if the filing is complete and meets the necessary timing requirements, the magistrate will allow the appointment. A citation will not issue in an informal proceeding. The petitioner must, however, on one occasion publish a notice of informal probate and/or appointment within thirty days of the appointment by the magistrate. The informal process does not require the Personal Representative to file with the court the Proof of Publication, the Inventory, or the Accounting(s).

The new informal proceeding allows for much less court involvement. It will aid attorneys and families in the timely appointment of Personal Representatives in cases that require immediate investigation to determine if the death of the decedent is the fault of another responsible party.

A Massachusetts Superior Court has held that the parents of an adult son are not liable for an injury that occurred at their son's BYOB party. Jane Doe v. John Doe, et al. While the parents were out of town on vacation, their son threw a BYOB party. The female plaintiff, who was an uninvited attendee, got into an altercation with another female guest. When the female plaintiff allegedly poured a can of beer on the other female, the other female "accidentally" struck the female plaintiff in the chest with a glass, which broke. The broken glass cut the female plaintiff in the chest, which required 18 stitches and left some scarring.
During the trial the female plaintiff testified that she did not see the son serve any alcohol to her attacker, but she herself did have some drinks.

The Superior Court judge granted the parents motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's tort claim holding that Massachusetts' Social Host Law does not apply to homeowners who "were not home at the time of the incident, knew nothing about the party beforehand, and when there was no evidence that the parents supplied any alcohol or controlled the supply of alcohol.

This case follows a similar holding in a Supreme Judicial Court case where the Court held that a husband and wife were not responsible for the injuries resulting from an alcohol-related car crash since they did not furnish the liquor that was consumed when their teenage daughter hosted an underage drinking party in their home. Further, the Supreme Judicial Court held that social hosts are only liable for injuries caused by the drunk driving of a guest IF they actually served or made the alcohol available. Julio v. Simpson.

Both decisions could pave the way for dismissal of a similar social host lawsuit against The Kraft Group which is being sued by the family of an underage girl who, after hanging out and drinking in the parking lot at the Country Music Festival at Foxborough Stadium, crashed into a tree and died. While the Kraft Group argues that Julio exonerates them from a liability in the Davis matter, the girl's family argues that Julio does not apply to commercial entities.

Under Massachusetts' Social Host Law, "the estate of a patron who died in an
automobile accident after becoming intoxicated at a licensed establishment may maintain a wrongful death cause of action against such licensee. The plaintiff must prove willful, wanton or reckless conduct on the part of the licensee.

If you or a family member has been charged with criminal activity, please contact Parker | Scheer LLP for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers

It's one of the worst nightmares for a family. A loved one becomes ill. He or she requires care that the family can no longer provide, so the family joins the hundreds of thousands of other families that entrust their loved one to a care facility. And while many elder facilities provide very good care, some do not, and accidents happen at both.

An 88-year-old woman, to be called Jane Doe, suffered from advanced Alzheimer's disease, bipolar affective disorder, hypertension CVA and hyperlipidemia. She was not able to verbally express herself, and she was also non-ambulatory. When moved to a care facility, she was totally dependent on the facility's staff for all her daily care needs, which included transferring her in and out of her bed with the aid of a Hoyer lift.

In March 2008 after the facility's staff moved Ms. Doe back into her bed using a Hoyer lift, Ms. Doe began to indicate that she had right hip and knee pain. When she was later taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, it was determined that Ms. Doe had a right displaced intertrochaneteric fracture with fragmentation and a massive hematoma which was then repaired with an open reduction internal fixation and hematoma evacuation. Jane Doe sued Beth Israel for negligence and tort for her fractured femur and other injuries.

The plaintiff argued that the existence of the displaced fracture of the patient's femur sufficiently proved that a trauma had occurred. Further since the plaintiff was in the care of the defendant's care facility and her medical chart showed no record that she had suffered any other trauma, fall, or other event, it was likely that the injury occurred when the defendant's staff moved Ms. Doe with the Hoyer lift in March 2008.

The defendant argued that because its staff always transferred Ms. Doe to and from bed using a Hoyer lift and the same standard of care was exercised during each transfer, Ms. Doe's injury probably was not caused by the transfer in March 2008. Instead it was likely the result of some organic means.

The matter was settled through mediation, with the defendant agreeing to pay $120 thousand.

If you need advice on a personal injury matter, please contact Parker | Scheer LLP for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers.

Novartis AG, a Swiss drug company, has recalled almost 200 lots of cough syrup. According to Novartis, the child resistant feature on some bottle caps was functioning improperly.

According to The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), the "child-resistant" caps on some bottles of cough and flu syrup were not as sturdy as advertised. Because the cough syrups contain acetaminophen and diphenhydramine, an overdose of the drugs can cause irreparable harm to children. The CPSC notes that thousands of children each year are poisoned by acetaminophen and diphenhydramine. In large doses, acetaminophen can cause serious liver damage.

The CPSC has warned users of these cough syrups to not use the products if they were purchased between May 2010 and December 2011.

The cough syrup involved in the recall includes 142 lots of Triaminic and 41 lots of Theraflu Warming Relief Syrups. All lots were manufactured in the Lincoln, Nebraska before December 2011 and lot numbers can be found on the Novartis AG web site. Manufacturing at the Lincoln, Nebraska, facility was suspended in December 2011 and the plant has yet to reopen.

Twelve reports of children unscrewing possible faulty caps have been reported. None of these have included the Theraflu syrup. Of these twelve Triaminic cases, four children ingested the cough syrup after opening the bottle. One of the four required medical attention.

According to Novartis, approximately 97% of the recalled syrup has already been used, returned, or put in a warehouse for quarantine. Novartis has asked consumers who still have bottles of affected cough syrup to either destroy or return unused product to Novartis Consumer Health Inc.

In January 2012, Novartis Consumer Health Inc. voluntarily recalled lots of Excedrin and NoDoz products with expiration dates of December 20, 2014 or earlier, as well as Bufferin and Gas-X Prevention products with expiration dates of December 20, 2013 or earlier.
If you have or a family member has been injured by a defective product or need advice on a personal injury matter, please contact Parker | Scheer LLP for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers.

For decades, the Catholic Church and Catholic Organizations have taken a pro-life stance. Abortion is bad. Life begins at conception.

To win a wrongful death lawsuit in Colorado, however, a Catholic hospital is arguing just the opposite.

Lori Stodghill was 28 weeks pregnant with twins when she began vomiting and experiencing shortness of breath. As she was wheeled into an examination room at St. Thomas More Hospital, she collapsed. The medical staff tried to revive her and paged Lori's obstetrician, who was also on call for any obstetric emergencies that night at St. Thomas. Lori's obstetrician never answered the page. The medical staff's efforts were unsuccessful, and less than an hour after she arrived at the hospital, Lori, along with her twins which were still in her womb, were dead. It was later determined that a main artery feeding Lori's lungs was clogged and that the clog led to a massive heart attack. Jeremy Stodghill, Lori's husband, sued St. Thomas and its owner, Catholic Health Initiatives, for the wrongful deaths of all three.

Under Colorado state law, an embryo is not a person until it is born alive. Since the Stodghill twins were deceased when they were removed from their mother's lifeless body, Catholic Health Initiatives argued that there was no wrongful death. The lower court agreed, and recently the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision.

To make a bad situation worse, the hospital and doctors then successfully sued Mr. Stodghill for over $100,000 in legal fees and attempted to garnish his wages to collect. The defendants then offered to forgive the debt if Mr. Stodghill dropped his appeal. He refused and filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying the debt.

Mr. Stodghill has now petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court to hear his case.

If you believe you have a wrongful death issue or are in need of advice on a personal injury matter, please contact Parker | Scheer LLP for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers.

Newtown. Aurora. Columbine.

Who is responsible?

According to one California Congressman, the notion that guns don't kill people, people kill people, is ludicrous, and he's introducing a bill to put the burden where it really belongs - on the gun industry. Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA.), plans to introduce the Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act which will allow victims of gun violence to sue the gun industry "when it acts with negligence and disregard for public safety." If passed by Congress and signed by the President, this bill will essentially undo the 2005 law gun law which shields firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits.

The 2005 gun liability bill was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association and was aimed at ending a number of lawsuits by individuals and municipalities, such as New York City and Chicago, which sought to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence when their weapons were used in crimes. The gun liability bill, which did not bar lawsuits which involved defective weapons or criminal behavior by a gun maker or dealer, was passed by Senate Republicans who held a strong majority in the Senate, and 58 Democrats and 223 Republicans in the House. Since the bill's passage, most of the lawsuits against the gun industry have been dismissed. Additionally, over 30 states adopted laws similar to the federal bill.

"Good gun companies don't need special protection from the law, and bad companies don't deserve it," Schiff said in a statement. "Other industries across our country don't enjoy this protection under the law - from pharmaceutical firms to automotive manufacturers or even cigarette companies - and it's inexcusable for Congress to give the NRA and gun manufacturers a blank check." Immunity from civil liability would be stripped away in state and federal court for licensed manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of firearms, as well as their trade associations, in most negligence and products liability actions.

If you or a family member have been a victim of gun violence, please contact Parker | Scheer LLP for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers.

Medicare clients had a huge victory when the U.S. House and Senate recently passed a bill that brings more certainty to the Medicare Secondary Payment (MSP) reimbursement process. Under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, Medicare will not pay medical bills that are the primary responsibility of a third party. The recently passed SMART Act also gives the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) a three-year statute of limitations. After the three year statute of limitations expires, the CMS is prevented from asking for additional money from clients or their attorneys. Additionally, the SMART Act simplifies the current online portal process for calculating MSP reimbursement so that claims can be processed more efficiently and faster.

How the Reimbursement Process Works: Beginning 120 days before the settlement date, parties anticipating settling a claim must notify the CMS. Within 65 days, CMS must then ensure their web portal contains the entire claimant's appropriate claims data. This includes at a minimum, the supplier or provider names, diagnosis codes, dates of service, and any conditional payment amounts. Then at the expiration of the 65 day (or potentially 30 day) period, the web portal must allow the parties the opportunity to download a final conditional payment amount. Any final conditional payment amount is reliable as long as the claim settles within 3 days after the claimant makes the download.

Resolving Discrepancies: If a claimant feels there are any discrepancies regarding the amount to be reimbursed, he or she can provide the CMS with documentation outlining the discrepancies. The CMS then has 11 business days to support the original calculation. If the CMS does not reply within 11 business days, the reimbursement amount as calculated by the claimant becomes the final conditional payment amount.

Appeals: Existing appeals rights for claimants remain the same. However, under the SMART Act the CMS is now required to draft regulations that give applicable insurance plans limited appeal rights to challenge final conditional payment amounts.

Applicable Claim Thresholds: The CMS, working with the GAO, now must determine and implement an annual threshold amount for liability claims (excluding ingestion, implantation, and exposure claims) only. Any claim that falls under the threshold will be barred from repayment.

If you are a Medicare claimant in need of legal assistance, please contact Parker | Scheer LLP for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers.

Congress recently granted the FDA authority with regard to medical products. Prior to this, the jurisdiction of regulating medical devices was left in ambiguous hands. Because of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, the FDA no longer requires economic reviews of the changes their decisions have. This process of review slowed down the classification of devices; now the FDA can classify older devices and determine their proper regulation with greater speed. In addition to this faster classification, the FDA is now using its new power granted by Congress for the first time to propose stricter regulations for metal hip replacements.

The proposal stems from many instances of failure in hip replacements made entirely of metal as opposed to their plastic-metal hybrid cousins. Malfunction of these products has forced many patients to undergo expensive, agonizing removal operations for the faulty metal hips. Some of these devices have also left shards of metal debris in patients, causing damage to the tissue and bone. In some case this can lead to severe disability. The most-sued of these devices is DePuy's Articular Surface Replacement (DePuy is a division of Johnson & Johnson.), which you can read more about here.

Under this proposal, companies producing such questionable hip replacements would have to redesign their product or submit clinical studies to prove their safety. The current method of regulation does not require such clinical proof; producers of metal hips must only demonstrate that their product is similar to products already on the market.

Ambiguities in the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 caused this loose regulation which the FDA aims to fix. These laws established regulation standards that vary for different products. The FDA requires that companies provide clinical proof of safety for devices which pose a high risk to the patient ("risk" based on the importance of the product to the patient's life and health and the chance of failure). Metal hips were not held to this higher standard; in fact, the FDA failed to officially classify them, hence the current loose regulation and the failure of products such as the Articular Surface Replacement. The FDA now wishes to correct this problem and hold metal hips to the same standard to which they already hold many alternative methods of replacement, such as resurfacing.

The proposal would allow companies 90 days to submit clinical evidence of safety. Failure to comply with the proposal or failure to meet FDA standards would result in a halt on the sale of the product. Metal hip manufacturers will most likely lobby against the proposal, as they previously lobbied for the FDA to regulate hips as moderate-risk products.

The FDA is taking other precautions against injury from faulty metal hips as well. In 2011 it ordered post-marketing studies to find out, among other things, the levels of debris that metal replacements left. It has also recommended that patients with symptoms of device failure after such hip replacements undergo regular testing to monitor metal levels in the blood over time.

If a defective medical product has injured you or a family member, please click here or call 1-866-414-0400 to speak with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers today.

Effective January 1, 2013, Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding fee agreements by attorneys has been amended.

Under the former Rule 1.5, attorneys were required to communicate the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fees and expenses. Rule 1.5 did not require the communication to be in writing unless the fees are on a contingent basis.

Under the amended Rule 1.5, the communication must now be in writing, whether the fee charged on an hourly or contingent basis. The disclosure regarding fees and expenses must disclose all "factors" used to determine how the fees are calculated, including the hourly rates. Further, the written disclosure should be communicated to the client at the onset of the engagement or within a reasonable time after the representation begins. Also, any changes to the basis or rate of the fee or expenses must be communicated in writing to the client.

Exceptions to the amended Rule 1.5 include the following:
1. the client is a "regularly represented client,"
2. the engagement is for a single-session legal consultation,
3. the total fee to be charged is less than $500, or
4. the engagement is an indigent representation fee imposed by a court or short-term legal services provided under the auspices of a program sponsored by a nonprofit organization or court

Massachusetts' attorneys who do not adhere to the amendments could face serious discipline. Mass. R. Prof. C., Scope, ¶ 5 (2012).
The Supreme Judicial Court has asked the legislature to deem "lawyer-for-the-day" or similar programs as exception to the revised rule .

Many Massachusetts attorneys have raised questions regarding the changes to Rule 1.5, such as:
1. Will the extra discipline over-burden the already limited resources of Bar Counsel's office?
2. Will clients not be responsible for fees and expenses incurred if the engagement agreement is not in writing?
3. If the agreement is not reduced to writing at the onset of the engagement, what is a reasonable time within which the writing must be generated?
4. Does an electronic communication comply with the new rule?

Regardless of the outcome of these issues, Massachusetts attorneys should begin to comply with the amended Rule 1.5 immediately.

Contact Parker | Scheer LLP for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers

"Recent changes to Massachusetts' medical liability laws could be major game changers for those pursuing medical malpractice cases in the state," according to Eric J. Parker, managing partner of Parker Scheer, LLP, a Boston law firm that represents victims of medical negligence.

The Massachusetts legislature recently enacted St. 2012, Chapter 224, which resulted in the following changes:

Admissible Apologies: Under Massachusetts law, G.L. c. 233, §23D, a statement of sympathy, regret, etc., as it relates to a non-intentional harm or accident, is not admissible. Chapter 224 allows these types of statements to be admitted to impeach a contradictory statement made by a medical provider under oath. However, Chapter 224 provides no definition of what testimony is deemed a "contradictory statement."

Disclosure of Unintended Outcomes: Chapter 224 now mandates that a healthcare provider or facility, or an employee or agent of a healthcare provider or facility, fully disclose to a patient any unanticipated outcome with significant medical complications that results from the fault of the healthcare provider or facility, or an employee or agent of a healthcare provider or facility. Under G.L..c. 223 §79L(a), an "unanticipated outcome" occurs when "the outcome of a medical treatment or procedure, whether or not resulting from an intentional act, that differs from an intended result of such medical treatment or procedure." Chapter 224 does not clarify what constitutes "medical treatment or procedure" or what liability will incur if a full disclosure is not made. However, it is likely that failing to make a full disclosure could support the argument that the statute of limitations "tolled" until the unanticipated outcome was disclosed.

Notice to File Lawsuit: A patient [or his attorney] is now required to notify a healthcare provider of any impending lawsuit. The notice must be in writing and delivered at least 182 days before the lawsuit is filed. A healthcare provider has 150 days to respond, in writing, to the notice. Claims nearing the end of their statute of limitations are exempt from the notice provision.

If you have been injured by a healthcare provider or an employee or agent of a healthcare provider in Massachusetts, and think you may have a medical malpractice case, please contact Parker | Scheer LLP for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Law and Business Litigation Lawyers.

In a recent Federal Court ruling, a judge overseeing claims filed in Massachusetts against New England Compounding Center (NECC) and other related entities linked to the fungal meningitis outbreak, ordered that "destructive testing" and on on-site inspection of the compounding center in Framingham, Massachusetts, may proceed. Parker Scheer LLP is one of approximately two dozen law firms representing victims of the tainted injectable drug, methylprednisolone acetate.

In her Order of December 10th, 2012, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer Boal of the U.S.District of Massachusetts, concluded that "time is of the essence. Several months have passed since the relevant events and the passage of time will only make it more difficult for Green to obtain scientifically valid information."

Proposed testing will include "sampling of wall, roof, ceiling and foundational assemblies and cavities, interior mechanical systems, including, but not limited to HVAC systems and its ductwork and plumbing systems," among other tests.

Attorneys from Parker Scheer LLP are expected to attend the upcoming inspection in Framingham.

The outbreak of fungal meningitis caused by the tainted doses of the injectable drug has led to more than 30 wrongful deaths and 490 injuries across the United States.

If you or a family member have been injured or suffered wrongful death due to the fungal meningitis outbreak, it is important to contact an experienced personal injury lawyer quickly. Please contact Parker | Scheer LLP for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers.

In a recently published study report, researchers at the Boston University School of Medicine stated that the brains of deceased athletes, from as early as high school, show brain damage.

According to the researchers, all 85 brains examined showed signs of head trauma. Sixty-five of the 85 brains examined showed signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), while 67 brains showed signs of tau. Brains examined from athletes who died after age 50 showed the most extensive brain damage, and prior to dying, many of the athletes exhibited severe memory loss and personality changes.

CTE is thought to occur when the head receives repeated concussions or blows. To date, CTE has not been found in brains that did not receive head trauma. Tau are protein tangles that clog brain tissue, ultimately causing brain cells to destruct.

According to Dr. Robert Cantu, a neurosurgeon and co-director of the Boston University Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy who co-authored the study, "The sheer size of the study should satisfy the doubts of anyone that CTE is a real condition caused by repeated head injuries." However, some neurologists still have skepticism regarding whether multiple head blows lead to tau tangles. Eighteen of the brains studied showed no evidence of tau tangles.

The study also outlined the four stages of CTE:

1. Headaches and problems with concentration,
2. Depression, aggression, explosive anger, and short-term memory loss,
3. Serious cognitive impairment, and
4. Full blown dementia.

In the last few years, the occurrence and danger of head injuries in sports, such as football, soccer, wrestling, hockey, and boxing, has caused a number of lawsuits and calls for reforms. Current and former football players, and their families, against the National Football League, have brought the largest head trauma lawsuit.

Have suffered a brain injury from playing a sport in Boston, Massachusetts? You may have a personal injury case.

If you or a family member has sustained a personal injury or brain injury from playing sports, you may have a case. Please contact Parker | Scheer LLP at 886-414-0400 for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers.

The Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority fired the Green Line Operator who caused last week's MBTA crash at Boylston Station by ramming his trolley into another trolley that was standing in the area. The trolley was arriving at Boylston Station from Park Station. According to the MBTA, the operator was not paying attention and was fatigued due to a second job at which he worked the overnight shift the previous night.

The subway crash occurred a little before noon last Thursday, only minutes into the operator's shift. Prior to his shift, the operator had worked from midnight to 8 AM, and he did not get adequate rest in between the two shifts. In doing so, he broke rules in place that require MBTA trolley drivers to be fit for duty when they show up for work. Because of this, the employee caused the collision that injured several customers and fellow employees. In addition, the crash caused over a half million dollars in damages to MBTA property. The drivers name and the name of his other employer have not been released to the public. It has also not been released if the investigation found that the operator was actually asleep at the time of the crash.

According to Jonathan Davis, the MBTA Acting General manager, there is a fatigue awareness program in place that the operator had completed twice, and he was aware of the policy that required him to show up to work fit for duty. There is no requirement in place that has a specific numbers of hours of sleep or a rule against having a second job in the MBTA worker policy. The driver had been working for the MBTA since 2006, and had no prior accidents on his record.

As a result of the trolley crash, 37 people were sent to a nearby hospital with various minor injuries. The scene of the accident was filled with emergency workers and local officials. There were also massive delays for public transportation across Boston as the station was closed for a significant portion of the day.

Soon after the MBTA trolley crash occurred trolley and track failures were both ruled out. At that point, attention turned to the operator. When the crash occurred the trolley was moving at approximately 10 to 13 miles per hour.

This incident marks the second Green Line subway crash in Boston in only two months. Over the Boston subway's hundred-plus year history, there have been many crashes and accidents.

Transportation officials had already been scheduled to receive a report that would look at getting automated signals that would stop vehicles prior to a crash on the Green Line. Although this would cost millions and millions of dollars, it could prevent crashes similar to this one and make it so that trains would not have to run as frequently.

If you or a family member have sustained a personal injury or had an incident with the MBTA Green Line or any form of public transportation, please contact Parker | Scheer LLP for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers.

Lowe's, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, has issued a nationwide voluntary product recall of Master Forge Gas Grills Model # GD4825. According to the recall, the $270 gas grill, manufactured by Guangdong Vanward Electric of China and imported by LG Sourcing, of North Wilkesboro, N.C. poses a potential fire and burn hazard if the gas hose is improperly installed. Specifically, if the hose connecting the gas tank and regulator to the burner control can touch the burner box, the hose can melt and blow up when the grill is lit. Though no one has been injured to date, two incidents where the hose melted and ruptured have been reported.

The Master Forge Gas Grill Model #GD4825 is a four-burner grill with a single door base. It was sold exclusively by Lowe's from November 2011 through May 2012. About 37 thousand gas grills are involved in the product recall.

Anyone with a Master Forge Gas Grill Model #GD4825 is asked to contact Guangdong Vanward Electric for revised instructions and a warning label to apply to the grill that shows how to properly install the hose and the regulator. Once the instructions are received, gas grill owners should inspect their grill to ensure the hose and regulator are properly installed and run along the outside of the grill cabinet, then pass through the round hole in the side panel.

Companies in this type of situation usually decide to have a product recall when they have found a defect or potential risk with the product. It is an attempt on the part of the company to limit liability for negligence and avoid any potential negative publicity.

"If you or a family member have sustained a personal injury or had an incident with the Master Forge Gas Grill or any defective product, please contact Parker | Scheer LLP for a free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Lawyers."