Boston Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

The family of Elvira Nunziata was awarded $200 million from a Florida jury against a nursing home that the jury found responsible for her wrongful death. The family, however, will unlikely collect any of the verdict because of the complex corporate structure in place at the nursing home in question. This complicated corporate structure exists in many of the nation's largest nursing homes and renders most judgment proof and unaccountable. This case, and the huge verdict that may go uncollected, has put this issue at the forefront again.

Elvira Nunziata was a 92-year-old patient at a long-term care facility in Florida who had dementia and was in a wheelchair. She was able to pass through a door that was likely left open by employees going outside for a smoke. She toppled down a flight of stairs strapped to her wheelchair and died as a result of her injuries.

Her family brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the nursing home responsible for her care and safety. The attorneys retained by the family to pursue the wrongful death case soon found out that the entity responsible for running the nursing home no longer existed. Trying to trace who would be responsible for paying the judgment has proved nearly impossible.

Frighteningly, this is not a rare occurrence. A review of the 10 largest for-profit nursing home chains in the United States revealed several layers of ownership. One layer might own the building; while another would lease the building, hire staffers and pay the bills. Nursing homes are structured this way in a concerted effort to provide protection from lawsuits. Even the federal regulators who issue the licenses to these nursing homes and Medicare and Medicaid who pay the bills are unable to determine which affiliated companies control what. If regulators pull an operator's license for substandard care, that company could dissolve and an affiliated company could take over.

Why does this matter?

This complex corporate structure is deceptive to families whose loved ones are in nursing homes and holds the entities that run them unaccountable. It not only presents a problem in the collectability of judgments, but also the day-to-day operations of nursing homes. While families may assume that the administrator of a nursing home or the local owner is making the decisions regarding staff and supplies that is not always the case. These decisions, made solely based on a for-profit scheme, could actually be made by a real estate investor in New York.

Congress must get involved and enact legislation to require transparency in the corporate structure of these facilities. At the very least, this must be done to promote patient safety. To read more on the case involving Elvira Nunziata click here.

Continue reading "Record Nursing Home Verdict Proves Nearly Impossible to Collect" »

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?" »

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" »

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)

Under current Massachusetts law, when someone is injured or killed as a result of the negligence of an employee of a Massachusetts Town, City, or the State, the maximum the victim or the victim's family can recover as compensation for the injury or death is $100,000. That's before deductions for attorney's fees and costs (usually amounting to about $33,000). This leaves the victim with roughly $66,000, whether the victim is left quadriplegic, blind, paralyzed, or dead. What brings this ridiculous law from the world of the absurd to the world of the insane is that the $100,000 cap applies even if the municipal employee is "grossly negligent" - generally defined as "reckless", or "with wanton disregard for the value of human life". Keep in mind, this law was created by Massachusetts lawmakers to protect the Commonwealth's treasury. It does not exist in New York or in most other civilized States. It has only one purpose: to save the State money no matter how horrific the act.

Every week, it seems, we read about another death or serious injury caused by the negligence of another Massachusetts City or State employee. Whether it's the death of a young child in a negligently maintained school yard, or the death of an innocent motorist in a defective State-owned tunnel, regardless of the extent of the negligence, the most the City or State will ever have to shell-out to the victim or the victim's family is $100,000. How can the "Bluest State in America" ( - Jon Keller) be so damn "Red"?

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.