Boston Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

There have been a number of residential fires in Greater Boston this year that were reportedly caused by negligence. Boston Fire Department spokesperson Steve MacDonald advised, "Don't leave candles unattended, and portable heaters are not intended to be permanent sources of heat in a room. If you smoke, make sure you extinguish it properly. And if you're cooking, don't leave pots unattended. It's all common-sense things." When common-sense precaution isn't exercised, however, damages and personal injury may be incurred.

In the winter months heat is a hot commodity. One of the most cost-effective and popular ways to heat up a small space in your home or office is with a portable heater. Space heaters should not be used to exclusively or continuously warm a room. Running portable heaters for extended periods of time increases the potential for an electrical fire, by coming into contact with flammable objects, like bedding, curtains, and clothing, resulting in a premises liability case.

As the Boston Globe reported in the article, Number of house fires on rise in Jan, electrical fires are often fatal. Massachusetts Fire Marshal Stephen D. Coan added that fires are often caused by "space heaters and not taking the proper precautions. The majority of our residents don't believe they will be a victim of fire.''

Continue reading "Rise in Boston Fires Due to Negligence" »

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently addressed this exact issue as it related to a guest who was struck in the back of the head by a softball while visiting a friend's home. The plaintiff was seated on the defendants' deck while other guests engaged in a softball game including one of the defendant homeowners. The softball game took place in close proximity to the deck where the plaintiff was seated. As the game progressed one ball was hit onto the roof above the porch. After that ball went astray, the defendant homeowner asked the participants to hit the ball down, to bunt and/or to swing half way when making contact with the ball. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff was struck in the back of the head with the softball hit by another guest.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant homeowner was negligent of the safety of his guests resulting in a premises liability because he organized and participated in the game. The defendant, homeowners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging they owed no duty to the plaintiff under these circumstances. A Massachusetts Superior Court allowed the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff appealed the decision.

Massachusetts law does not typically hold homeowners liable for the conduct of other persons who cause a personal injury at their home. In this case however, the homeowners' ownership of the equipment and the right to control the use of the equipment placed them in a position of authority to which a duty attached. The Appeals Court held that the defendant homeowners owed a duty to the plaintiff because the defendant homeowners:(1) owned the softball equipment; (2) had the right to control the use of the equipment; (3) were present and aware the equipment was being used; and (4) were aware of the danger to the guests on the porch given that one ball was hit onto the roof above the porch. The Appeals Court remanded the case back to the Superior Court. In doing so, the Appeals Court noted that the ultimate issue of whether the defendant homeowners are liable for the plaintiff's injuries must be left to the fact finder.

Continue reading "Does a homeowner who invites guests to his home owe those guests a duty of care for actions of third parties? " »

The law in Massachusetts regarding exacerbation of pre-existing injuries is crystal clear and yet cases involving a worsening of an underlying condition can be extremely difficult to prove. Massachusetts law holds a defendant who injures another as a result of negligence responsible for the exacerbation of any pre-existing injury that plaintiff suffers as result of the accident. Despite the state of the law, plaintiffs' lawyers often face vigorous opposition when attempting to convince an insurance adjuster and defense attorney that the accident at issue caused the plaintiff's underlying condition to worsen.

Plaintiffs' attorneys typically encounter exacerbation of injuries as it relates to the neck and back. A plaintiff may have an underlying herniated disc in his neck for which he received conservative treatment five years prior to the accident. The plaintiff is subsequently injured in a motor vehicle accident which causes him to have severe neck pain. Following the motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff receives medical treatment including surgery on his neck. That plaintiff often faces an uphill battle attempting to prove to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the motor vehicle accident exacerbated the underlying neck injury and necessitated the resulting surgery.

Plaintiffs such as the one just described with underlying injuries that are exacerbated as a result of a personal injury case should be prepared to hear that the condition was pre-existing and nothing the defendant did caused the underlying condition to worsen. Plaintiffs must refute the defendant's denial of the claim by demonstrating through use of the medical records, radiological films and experts that the pre-existing condition was in fact worsened as a result of the negligence of the defendant.

Continue reading "Pre-existing Injuries in Personal Injury Cases" »

Sunday, September 12, 2010. The first day of football season. The Patriots stadium is packed with fans excited to see the home team start a new season. Unfortunately, this season began with the death of a Patriots fan in front of his son. 40 year-old father, Jeff Chartier, of Chicopee, MA, died a little more than an hour before kick-off at the season opener at Gillette stadium. According to the family, Chartier was a devout Patriots fan and held season tickets for the past 18 years.

The heated argument occurred over Chartier's 6-year old son. The fan was reportedly told by NFL officials (a referee) before the game that his son, Teddy, could run on the sideline and take pictures from on the field. However, once approaching the field, a security officer for Gillette Stadium told the boy he had no reason to be on the field and got into an argument with the father. When Chartier's son started crying, the argument escalated.

Chartier collapsed once he returned to his seat, on the south sideline, where he was rished by EMT's to the hospital. Reports state that the argument led up to a heart attack, which caused the death of Jeff Chartier.

A witness reported that the father was "steaming" after the argument. The same witness reported that while she tried to help Chartier, the stadium employee did nothing to help and just stood there. Further, according to Stacey James, the Patriot's vice president of media relations, no one was fired as a result of anything that happened during this game.
A memorial fund has been established on behalf of Jeff Chartier in order to help the family. Chartier is survived by his wife, Kimberly Ann, and two children, 8-year-old Amber and 6-year-old Teddy. The memorial fund is the Teddy and Amber Chartier Educational Fund, c/o Polish National Credit Union, in Chicopee (their hometown).

This story is an example of how private security officers can often act negligently, or worse, harmful towards patrons. Whether the security officer was harmful by arguing or possible engaging in an altercation with a fan, or negligent in not aiding the fan while having a heart attack is still uncertain. However, the Chartier family is reportedly waiting to hear answers from investigators. It is not uncommon for stadium and private security to get into altercations patrons, and unfortunately, this may lead to terrible consequences for an innocent patron.

Patriot Fan Died after Alleged Fight with Stadium Employee

Patriors Fan Dies at Gillette Stadium with Son at his Side

Continue reading "Father Dies at Patriot Stadium After Heated Argument with Stadium Security" »

Well, they finally did the right thing. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the Commonwealth's highest court, ruled in the case of Papadopoulos v. Target Corp that differentiating between a "natural" and "unnatural" accumulation of ice or snow - as a basis for liability on the part of a property owner was...well... unnatural, and instead created a new standard for determining the liability of a landowner (or controlling party) to persons injured as a result of a fall on snow or ice.

For those who have not followed this fascinating (NOT) debate, a short summary of the previous test for liability may be instructive.

Under the old rule, if a person slipped and fell on a patch of ice while walking through a mall parking lot, for example, or a friend's driveway, and suffered an injury as a result of that fall, the victim could NOT recover compensation from the property owner UNLESS the victim could prove that the ice that caused the fall accumulated unnaturally - that is - that it was not the product of natural weather conditions. In simple terms: if it rains in Massachusetts and the temperature falls below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, and the puddles of rain turn into sheets of ice - that's "natural". On the other hand, if the property owner, in an effort to clear a path to his car, creates an icy berm that would never have existed but for the pile of snow and ice created by the property owner, and someone trips over that berm, then the accumulation might be regarded as "unnatural", and thereby make the property owner liable for the victim's medical expenses and other losses. The operative word here is "might" - and therein the "problem".

To understand why Massachusetts personal injury lawyers (rather than the lawyers who represent the insurance companies) hated this rule, was that it was often difficult if not impossible to prove whether a particular accumulation of snow or ice was "natural" or "unnatural". Take for example the case of a woman who slips and falls on a patch of ice located directly in front of the entrance to a supermarket. As a result of her fall, the woman suffers a serious closed-head injury, involving bleeding of the brain and a prolonged and expensive hospitalization. An investigation of the accident scene demonstrates that the supermarket's employees had shoveled away the snow leading to the entrance of his store the evening before the accident, and just after a major snow storm. The problem is, they placed the shoveled snow in a pile, slightly uphill from where the entrance to the supermarket was located. As the snow began to melt, water flowed from the pile of snow to the supermarket's main entrance and accumulated as a puddle of water, which later froze as temperatures dropped.

Under the old rule, to recover for her injuries, the victim had to prove that the ice upon which she slipped and fell was "unnatural"; that is would not have existed where it did, and in the form (ice) that it did, had it not been for the actions of the store's employees in creating a snow pile where they did. Seems easy enough - until lawyers for the company insuring the property insisted that the ice upon which the woman fell was entirely "natural"; that it was (natural) rain water, which flowed (naturally) downhill, due to the (natural) force of gravity where it collected and froze (naturally) when the (natural) weather conditions lead to colder temperatures. Was this debate costly and difficult for trial judges to decide - naturally it was.

You see, in almost all other kinds of personal injury cases involving a fall on property, the victim need only show that the property owner failed to maintain his property in "reasonably safe condition"; free of hazards or dangerous conditions that a "reasonable" (more on that word in a future blog post) person would be required to correct. So, for example, if the owners of a strip-mall parking lot perform maintenance on their lot, and leave a puddle of machine oil behind, causing a patron to slip and all, liability on the part of those who should have removed the oil is fairly easy to prove under current law. Nobody need debate whether the oil flowed naturally, or whether motor oil was a natural material, etc., etc. All the victim need show was that the property contained a defect that the property owner knew of - or, in the exercise of due care - was expected to know of - given his duty to monitor, inspect, and otherwise supervise his property for the safety of his visitors. None of this "natural" vs. "unnatural" banter is necessary.

Then - in July of 2010 - just when everyone in Massachusetts is thinking about snow and ice, the "Supremes" decided the case of Papadopoulos v. Target Corp and everything changed. No longer would a plaintiff be required to prove an unnatural accumulation in order to recover. Instead, the high court ruled, the plaintiff would only be required to demonstrate that the property was in defective condition, sufficient to warrant correction by the property owner, as the basis for liability.

Kudos to the SJC for bringing the natural vs. unnatural debate to an end.

SJC'S Reconsideration of Massachusetts Snow-and-Ice Doctrine Pending

By next winter, Massachusetts pedestrians may be owed a greater duty of care on cold, wintry days when walking conditions are hazardous.

Under current Massachusetts law, a property owner is not liable for injuries occurring on his property resulting from the "natural accumulation" of snow and ice. This doctrine, which has been in place for over 125 years, has been criticized in recent years as impractical, arbitrary, and leading to inconsistent outcomes in lawsuits.

However, in February the Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument which requested that it reconsider whether this doctrine, known as the "Massachusetts Rule," should be upheld as a reasonable, useful approach to slip-and-fall cases, or whether the "Connecticut Rule," which is based on a due care standard, is better suited to modern conditions. A decision to adopt the Connecticut Rule would permit liability of a property owner, regardless of whether the snow or ice which caused the injury was a natural or unnatural accumulation.

Proponents of the change suggest that adopting a reasonableness standard instead of a natural/unnatural distinction refocuses the law on safety and reasonable expectations for landowners, instead of how the unsafe condition ended up there. A reasonableness standard would require a determination as to whether the property owner acted reasonably and within a reasonable time to make his premises reasonably safe from accidents involving snow and ice, regardless of the "natural" or "unnatural" manner in which the conditions arose. This obligation would be more consistent with other types of landlord liability.

However, others oppose any change to the long-held rule on the grounds that winter conditions make it impossible to prevent all accidents, and imposing a higher standard of care on landowners would only result in increased litigation with little ground for a landowner-defendant to stand on. Opponents point to the fact that there are numerous exceptions to the current law which would hold property owners liable under the appropriate circumstances. For example, a natural accumulation of snow or ice can become "unnatural" by human alteration, such as footprints or plow tracks, exposing the property owner to potential liability. In addition, a breach of an express or implied agreement to remove snow and ice caused by weather conditions could result in liability to third parties injured by that breach.

The issue continues to be under advisement with the SJC in the case, Papadopoulos, et al. v. Target Corporation, et. al. A decision abandoning the Massachusetts Rule would allow persons injured as a result of hazardous snow and ice conditions to seek recourse for their preventable injuries. Moreover, greater expectations placed upon property owners would help prevent winter-related slips and falls before they result in such injuries.

If you sustained personal injuries as a result of a fall on snow or ice and would like to know if you have a viable claim, please contact us for more information.

Back to top

Parker Scheer LLP is currently interviewing persons who may have suffered injury after visiting the CoCo Key Water Resort located at the Sheraton Ferncroft in Danvers, Massachusetts. According to published reports, the park was closed after dangerous levels of chlorine were found at the park. Those affected by the chlorine levels have reported a wide range of symptoms including chemical burns, skin irritation, and other related conditions. Those interested in speaking with a member of Parker Scheer's Complex Personal Injury Group regarding a potential claim should call, toll free, 866-414-0400 or complete a confidential on-line request for assistance.
March 8, 2008, Danvers, MA: CoCo Key Water Resort was still shut down yesterday after testing earlier in the week showed excessive levels of chlorine byproducts, and health officials heard more reports of chemical burns at the $20 million facility attached to the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort.
No reopening time or date has been set, General Manager Kristin Perry said in a statement....Salem News
March 3, 2008 Middleton, NH -- A New Hampshire mother says a group of children who spent the day at CoCo Key Water Park ended up in the hospital with chemical burns caused by the chlorine, a claim the owners of the new attraction deny.
The children spent two days and one night at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort in Danvers with a group of friends on a Girl Scout trip.
Kristen Baker of Litchfield, N.H., which is about 10 miles north of Nashua, did not accompany her children but said she was horrified to see them when they returned Friday night.
"When she walked in the door she -- oh my God -- she was bright red like a really bad sunburn," Baker said.
Her 11-year-old daughter, Emily, had burns more severe than her 9-year-old brother, Austin, but both had burns so bad it hurt to have clothes on, she said.
Baker claimed the hotel had dangerous levels of chlorine in pools and spas at CoCo Key. The hotel denied the levels were unsafe...The Eagle Tribune

Each year, on the day after Thanksgiving, thousands of Americans line up before dawn outside stores, outlets, and malls to get the latest door buster sales on all sorts of consumer goods. A lucky few walk away with deals, others leave empty-handed, and many more of us, perhaps those who have been sleeping off the big turkey dinner the night before, view the bedlam on our televisions from the comfort of our own homes.

Most Americans are familiar with the large crowds and negotiating parking lots to find a spot, but what happens when a shopping trip turns into a trip to the emergency room or doctor's office? In Massachusetts, a landowner must act as a reasonable person in maintaining a property in a reasonable safe condition in view of all of the circumstances, including (1) the likelihood of injury to others, (2) the seriousness of the injury, and (3) the burden of avoiding risk.

Does the storeowner need to be aware of the wet floor or other hazardous condition? It depends. Massachusetts' highest court has recognized that it can be difficult for an injured party to prove an owner actually knew or should have known about a dangerous condition.

Notice of a hazardous condition requires a determination of: (1) whether an owner could reasonably foresee that a foreseeable risk stemming from the owner's "mode of operation" could occur and (2) whether the owner exercised reasonable care in maintaining the premises in a safe condition commensurate with these foreseeable risks.

For example, in a case where a customer sustained serious injuries after slipping and falling on a grape, a grocery store could be considered to have notice of the dangerous condition where it was reasonably foreseeable that the store's produce could end up on the floor.

Similarly, a storeowner can be liable for dangerous conditions caused by third parties, i.e. other customers. Liability only attaches, however, if the owner could reasonably foresee that the dangerous condition could occur, resulting from the owner's chosen mode of operation, and the owner took inadequate steps to forestall resulting injuries.

A commercial landlord, like an owner of a mall, has a duty to keep the premises in a safe condition; the landlord is liable for personal injury when either (1) he or she agrees to be liable under the terms of a lease, or (2) an injury occurs in an area of the property over which the landlord has some control..

Massachusetts courts only impose liability upon a commercial tenant if he or she occupies the entire premises. For example, a commercial landlord was not liable for injuries from a slip and fall injury when the company had leased the entire premises to the United State Postal Service.

If you or someone you know has been injured by, you may be entitled to compensation. To speak with a highly experienced premises liability lawyer phone Parker Scheer LLP seven days a week, toll free at 866-414-0400. There is no fee charged to discuss your case, and all information furnished, will be kept strictly confidential.

The restaurant business can be a slippery slope. This is not only due to tough economic times but because of the slips and falls that occur in the workplace every day. Boston has a large number of restaurants and visitors and a personal injury on the job can be a frequent occurrence. Restaurants are particularly susceptible to this danger, since floors can be slick from cooking oils or soap and water. In addition, staircases leading to storage rooms, basements and wine cellars tend to be narrow, dimly it and many times, steps are in poor condition.

We have provided safety tips that can prevent the slips and falls that lead to premises liability suits. First, keep stairs non-slippery; they should remain clean and dry between washings. Use noticeable signs when the floor is wet to ensure that the staff (as well as the customer if in the dining room) is extra careful around the area. When cleaning, use slip-resistant waxes to treat or polish floors. Next, double check your carpeting, rugs and mats. They should be free of holes, loose threads and edges and any bumps that will allow for a stumble or fall. Move any type of obstacle out of the way; for example, if your staff leaves footstools or ladders in the middle of the kitchen or storage room floor, break that habit immediately. Instead, footstools and ladders should be put away right after use, and stored in a safe place. Also, make sure these items have non-skid feet and are in good condition.

For stairways, check the lighting to make sure it is brightly lit. Purchase bulbs with a higher wattage and change them frequently. Provide a handrail for your workers - if you do not have one, install one immediately. Do not store boxes or other items in the stairway. This is a recipe for disaster. Even though it may increase your monthly electric bill, always keep the lights on in stairwells to ensure the staff's safety.

In the restaurant business, slips and falls often occur. If you experience a slip and fall at restaurant in the Boston area then contact a personal injury lawyer located at the Boston, MA offices of Parker Scheer. Parker Scheer is a highly experienced Boston personal injury law firm. Please contact us for a no fee consultation. Our phone lines are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week at 866-414-0400. We also have our quick and easy E-form - fill it out, click Submit and you will receive an answer within four hours.

For more information about your rights in connection with a slip and fall accident injury case or an injury from a fall then contact us or call our Boston office toll free seven days a week at 866-414-0400. There is never a charge to discuss a potential case.

December 14, 2009

For those of you who still in need of that perfect tree for Christmas; this blog's for you. 

There are a few things to keep in mind before you lace up your snow boots, head out into the frosty air and cut down your own Christmas tree. Aside from frostbite and squirrel attacks, you may be walking into less obvious dangers when you cut down your own tree. And what's more concerning is that even if you are seriously injured you may have no recourse against the owner of the tree farm.

A recent Massachusetts case illustrates the dangers inherent in "pick your own" tree farms. In the case, a woman was seriously injured when she tripped over a stump that was covered in snow while she was out looking to cut down her own tree. The woman sued the owner of the Christmas tree farm for her injuries but the lower court denied her claims citing a Massachusetts statute. The statute does provides for limited liability for owners of "pick your own" Christmas tree farms, however what was most troubling about the trial court's decision was that they said that the owner of the farm could avoid all liability even if they did not post a proper warning sign!

Fortunately, the appellate court overruled the trial court and found that in order for the owners of "pick your own" Christmas tree farms to avoid liability for injuries that are sustained by its customers; they must post a proper warning.

What this means for those of you who want a pick your own tree, is that you may be relinquishing your rights if you walk onto a Christmas tree lot. If you see this sign at the entrance of the lot:

WARNING
Under section 2E of chapter 128 of the General Laws the owner, operator, or any employees of this farm, shall not be liable for injury or death of persons, or damage to property, resulting out of the conduct of this 'pick-your-own' harvesting activity in the absence of wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct.

You are giving up your right to be compensated for injuries that you suffer on the lot. The warnings must be placed in a location visible to people entering the farm and the warning must appear on a sign in black letters of at least one inch in height.

The point here is that people need to be aware when their rights are being extinguished. So before you enter the Christmas tree lot this holiday season, remember to look for the sign.

Have a safe and happy holiday from Parker | Scheer LLP. 

Parker Scheer LLP, a leading Boston personal injury law firm, has successfully represented numerous persons in personal injury matters. If you or someone you know has been injured as a result of the negligence of another, contact us seven days, toll free at 866-414-0400 or by email to info@parkerscheer.com

Lawyers Weekly - August 24, 2009

On Labor Day in 2007, an 11-year-old boy and his 8-year-old brother were playing on the grounds of the grammar school they attended, which was a short walk from their home.

Located on the open grounds of the school was a large, three-sided brick structure, designed as a storage enclosure for two trash dumpsters. A 1,600-pound steel gate, which at one time guarded the entrance to the dumpster enclosure, had been removed several years earlier to provide easier access for sanitation trucks. After being removed, the steel gate apparently had been placed in a leaning position against one of the interior walls of the enclosure and was not otherwise secured.

While the boys were playing in the empty enclosure, the steel gate fell. The older boy was killed and his younger brother suffered serious crush injuries.

The defendant, the city in which the boys lived and attended the school, acknowledged leaving the unsecured gate in a precarious state for several years in an area of the yard to which children had easy access and likely would be attracted.

The total settlement represented the maximum damages to which the plaintiffs were legally entitled to recover against a municipal defendant pursuant to G.L.c. 258, §2.

Claims against several other parties named in the suit remain pending.

Type of action: Premises liability
Injuries alleged: Wrongful death, serious crush injuries, emotional distress
Name of case: Withheld
Court/case no.: Essex Superior Court (no. withheld)
Tried before judge or jury: N/A (settled)
Amount of settlement: $600,000
Date: May 12, 2009
Attorneys: Eric J. Parker and Susan M. Bourque, Parker Scheer, Boston (for the plaintiff)

Boston Lawyer for Chemical Spill

The effects of hazardous chemical inhalation pose a threat to all individuals within our nation. Recently, this summer New Bedford was the location of a mass casualty incident response. 119 people were sent to local area hospitals as a result of exposure to an unknown substance at the ABC trash collection agency. Fire and Police Personal responded to a 911 call from the ABC plant. When they arrived at the scene they found that people working at the plant had been overcome by some sort of chemical vapor.

Two plant workers exposed to this unknown substance were listed in critical condition. The incident occurred in the location were the garbage trucks unload their trash into the hopper. According to authorities the majority of injuries involved similar symptoms, inhalation injuries, and irritation of the mouth, nose, and eyes. Roughly 60 teams of HAZMAT responders were brought to the ABC Plant throughout the day in an effort to pinpoint the dangerous substance.

As a result of the incident police were forced to block regular traffic circulating the area. Ambulances, fire trucks, rescue trucks, and HAZMAT vehicles arrived throughout the day to aid the injured and attempt to identify the unknown substance. Although there were no fatalities in this incident, two plant workers were placed under critical condition at local area hospitals. Neither the cause nor identity of the lethal chemical substance has been identified.

There are numerous types of incidents involving chemical exposure that could potentially pose a threat to a large portion of the population. Common types of incidents include nuclear reactor accidents, industrial accidents, oil and gas drilling, oil and gas spills, scientific research and lab work, biochemical research, garbage exposure, Garbage disposal plants, landscaping, painting, general research, transportation services, farming, and exposure to X rays.

These common types of chemical exposures all have the capability for persons developing severe personal injuries within individuals exposed to the substances. It is of utmost importance that if you or a loved one works or lives in an area associated with dangerous chemicals you routinely check in with medical personal to assess your health.

If you are working or living near an area that is potentially exposed to dangerous chemicals it is essential that you understand the symptoms associated with them. Generally, the symptoms vary depending on which chemicals are inhaled and for how long they were inhaled. Common symptoms include irritation of the skin, irritation of the eyes, nose, ears, cough, and shortness of breath, difficult breathing, and coughing up blood. Yet the inhalation of different gases leads to different symptoms requiring various treatments. Chlorine, phosgene, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen dioxide, and ammonia, may suddenly be released during industrial accidents and may severely irritate the lungs. Respirators and inhalers are commonly used to alleviate these symptoms. Gases such as chlorine and ammonia easily dissolve and immediately irritate the mouth, nose, and throat.

Radioactive gases, which may be released in a nuclear reactor accident, may cause different forms of cancer years after the initial exposure. Further, the inhalation of certain gases could trigger an allergic response in certain individuals leading to inflammation, irritating skin, and even death.

If you are experiencing any of these symptoms you should immediately seek medical assistance. One common mistake is waiting to see if the symptoms dissipate. This only leads to them worsening and potentially becoming incurable. At Parker Scheer, we understand the different forms of chemical exposure.

We seek to give individuals expert advice on how to deal with the various treatments and expenses associated with their exposure to chemicals. If you or a loved one has been exposed to chemicals, due another parties negligence then call a Parker Scheer attorney today.

For more information about your rights in connection with a chemical spill or chemical exposure injury, contact us or call our Boston office toll free seven days a week at 866-414-0400. There is never a charge to discuss a potential case.

Parker Scheer has been retained by the parents of two young boys who suffered serious, and in one case fatal injuries after a 1600-pound iron gate fell upon them at the Tenney Grammar School in Methuen, Massachusetts on September 3rd, 2007. The couple's 11 year old son was killed and his 8 year old brother suffered serious crush-related injuries as a result of the incident.

For more information, please contact us.