William D. Kickham
William D. Kickham
Construction Accident
Car Accident
Nursing Home

|

In my previous post, I reported on a wrongful death and medical malpractice lawsuit filed by the family of a Harvard University student who committed suicide while under the care of the school’s Health Services Department. Now I’ll explain the legal basis for why this suit is being filed, and why the family is accusing the defendants here with negligence.

The fact that patients taking Accutane, Prozac or Wellbutrin should be monitored for development of any suicidal thoughts is not news to anyone – certainly not to anyone in the medical community. Furthermore, according to the suit, young Edwards told the nurse who prescribed these drugs that he had taken Prozac when he was younger, but that it made him experience feelings of being “out of control.” Despite this, the nurse prescribed allegedly him the combination of Adderall, Wellbutrin and Prozac – knowing that he was also taking Accutane, known to create a higher risk of suicide in many patients. What this family (the plaintiffs) must legally prove here (as must all plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits or medically-related wrongful deaths suits,) is that the actions of both this nurse practitioner and her supervising doctor fell below the “standard of care” required of medical professionals of the same qualifications, intelligence, and experience, operating under similar circumstances.

The term “standard of care” refers to professionally-recognized, widely-accepted routine custom and practice in any given profession. There is no one standard of care applicable to all professions, but different ones that apply to and are particular to, different professions. For example, in this case, professional organizations such as the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association will have published certain minimum steps and “best practices” that should be followed when evaluating and treating a young adult presenting with certain mental health complaints. Expert witnesses and academic authorities can also tesify to certain minimum standards of care that these defendants were required to adhere to in caring for a patient such as young Mr. Edwards. Whether or not their care deviated from or fell below these standards, has yet to be determined.

Continue reading

|

My apologies for not having posted here for awhile – I’ve been sidelined with either a minor flu or bad cold. Not a big deal; worse things can happen to people.

As the story behind today’s post makes very clear. This is the story of a very promising young student attending Harvard University, where he was embarking on a career toward medical school, and who showed all the promise that one could ask for. Tragically, that promise was cut short when the student, John Edwards of Wellesley, aged 19, committed suicide on November 29 2007. This past week, his parents filed a wrongful death suit against Harvard University, alleging that Edwards received substandard care from the University’s Health Services, which caused or contributed to his suicide.

Edwards originally sought help at the college’s health services office, because he reported that he was unable to study or concentrate for long periods of time. A nurse practitioner at the school’s infirmary prescribed Edwards “Adderall“, which is a drug that is designed to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”, as it’s sometimes referred to.) In what I as a Massachusetts medical malpractice lawyer find surprising to say the least, the nurse prescribed this drug, even though Edwards had never been diagnosed with this condition. Some time afterward, when Edwards complained of anxiety and depression, the nurse practitioner also prescribed Edwards two additional medications: Prozac and Wellbutrin, which of course are powerful antidepressants. An important element in all this, is that Edwards was already taking another medication to treat acne, Accutane, and this drug is been widely linked to generating suicidal thoughts in patients who take it.

Continue reading

|

In a type of case that is a hybrid between a Massachusetts personal injury suit and a civil rights claim, the City of Attleboro, Massachusetts has agreed to pay a 17 year-old girl $100,000 in damages to settle a suit against the city alleging excessive use of force, and police brutality.

Esther Durex, then 16 years old at the time of the incident on October 12 2008, said she was beaten by police after leaving a party on that date last year. The settlement was negotiated with the city by the youth’s attorney, and was approved recently by Judge Robert Kane of Fall River Superior Court. Reportedly, the settlement will be paid by the city’s insurance company. The settlement required a judge’s approval because the plaintiff is a minor.

Durex’s attorney, David Cass, calling her a “model student,” said the Attleboro High School senior was stopped and eventually arrested by police after leaving a party on the date in question. He said his client was struck by officers with clubs in the head, legs and arms. Durex suffered a broken wrist in the incident. The victim incurred approximately $2,700 in medical bills and has had to receive psychological counseling as a result of the incident, according to her attorney.

Continue reading

|

I’ve been traveling out of office for a couple of weeks, and I haven’t posted anything for too long – my apologies to my loyal readers. Today, I want to send this brief message: I’ve been given a lot of good things in this life. I’ve had my share of suffering and personal losses, also, but I am grateful for what I have. Most importantly, for the gift of my beautiful wife (who had a birthday yesterday,) and for those I am close to. We are all at different places in life, and we all have different blessings and burdens. But I think we can all agree that, unfortunately, there are always those who have less than we do, and that we can all be grateful to varying degrees for what we have in life. Debbi and I are blessed to be here in Hawaii over Thanksgiving, and while this is a beautiful place, it is also marked by a very high cost of living, and by the sadness of too much poverty for too many who live and work here. We hope we can do our part to leave this place having extended some kindness and benevolence to those who live here, especially on Thanksgiving Day during our visit.

I passed a Buddhist statuary today, and a particular contemplation struck me as important: “When Wishes Are Few The Heart Is Happy.” That is a tall order in a world dominated by a consumerist-mentality and by nonstop messages of “Buy, Get, Acquire.” But these age-old words are important to remember, or it becomes hard to be grateful for anything.

And so I give thanks for the blessings I have, including my loyal readers, my friends and my clients.

Continue reading

|

Massachusetts dog bite cases just got a little easier to bring in court and to win, at least those involving injuries caused by pit bull terriers. That’s good news for victims of these horrible attacks, which can scar a person for life not only physically, but in cases involving children and other vulnerable victims, emotionally as well.

A recent ruling by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in the case of Nutt v. Florio, has held that in future dog bite cases involving pit bull terriers, plaintiffs will no longer have to first demonstrate that the attacking dog had a “vicious propensity,” or that it had previously attacked others, before being allowed to argue the case before a jury. Up until now, when bringing suit against a defendant for injuries suffered as the result of a dog bite or dog attack, plaintiffs in Massachusetts needed to first make an evidentiary showing that the defendant “knew or should have known” that the dog had “vicious propensities” or that it had attacked other persons previously. In these types of cases, the defendant is usually either the owner of the dog, the owner of a house where the dog was kept, or the landlord of a building where a tenant kept the dog. When such cases have been brought in the past in Massachusetts, the defendant’s attorney (who, in almost all cases, is actually the attorney representing the liability insurance company that insures the defendant through either a property owner’s or automobile owner’s liability policy) will review the plaintiff’s complaint that has been filed in court. If the defendant’s attorney sees that there is little evidence to support the claim that the defendant knew or should have known that the dog in question had either vicious propensities or had attacked others in the past, the defense will file what is known as a “Motion for Summary Judgment.” This motion is designed to get the case dismissed before trial, because up to present in Massachusetts, a plaintiff had to show that the defendant knew the dog displayed vicious propensities, or knew that it had attacked others previously, in order to bring a case before a judge or jury.

With this Appeals Court ruling, that requirement has now been eliminated – for cases involving attacks by pit bulls. In this case, the court found that a landlord could be held liable for injuries suffered by a 10-year-old boy injured by a pit bull attack, even though the dog had never before attacked anyone, the landlord was not aware of any previous aggressive behavior by the dog, and even though the landlord had no particular knowledge about the controversial breed’s propensities. This ruling means that, for cases alleging attacks and/or injuries caused by pit bulls, injured victims (plaintiffs) will no longer have to show that the defendant either knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities prior to the attack that caused the plaintiff’s injuries, in order to argue the case before a jury. It means that a jury will be allowed to hear that this breed of dog is known to be especially aggressive, and that they will apply ordinary standards of negligence in deciding whether a defendant should be held liable for a plaintiff’ injuries. (Because, of course, a lawsuit involving a dog bite is a negligence action alleging personal injuries.)

Continue reading

|

In my previous post on this topic, I discussed a recent case involving Massachusetts liquor liability, and what that kind of case consists of. Now I’ll explain why a bar or restaurant can be held liable if a patron who becomes intoxicated at that restaurant, later injures someone as a result of that intoxication.

Legal liability in a case like this arises from the negligence of restaurant management in failing to adequately hire, train, and monitor the skills and activities of its servers and/or wait staff who serve alcoholic beverages. If the restaurant management in this case had properly hired, monitored and supervised the waitress involved, they would have seen that this waitress was deliberately ignoring the restaurant’s legal duty to spot and prevent patrons from being served too much alcohol, and the resulting Massachusetts car accident and injuries suffered by the plaintiffs here, would not have occurred. The legal argument used by this plaintiff (and similar plainitffs,) is that the restaurant management: 1) Had a legal duty to prevent patrons from becoming overly-intoxicated at its establishment (accomplished through appropriate enforcement of the highly effective TIPS program); 2) That the restaurant management “knew or should have known” that if it did not hire adequate personnel and monitor its wait staff for compliance with this program, one or more patrons would become excessively intoxicated and very possibly cause injuries to third parties – in essence, that the accident was “foreseeable”; 3) That such an accident or injuries did occur, and that it occurred due to the intoxication of that customer; and 4) That the plaintiff(s) suffered damages as a result.

As to exactly how a skilled plaintiff’s attorney proves to a jury that negligence occurred, a variety of techniques can be used (depending, of course, on the expertise level of the attorney representing you.) In this case, the attorney for the plaintiffs was prepared to call an expert witness – a medical biochemist – to testify as to what the expected – and observable – signs and symptoms of intoxication would have been in this case, and the plaintiff was also prepared to call an expert consultant who was a certified TIPS trainer. That expert would have testified that this bar’s policies and procedures in monitoring and enforcing the TIPS program were lax and inadequate. Further, as to evidence, the plaintiff’s attorneys fought very hard to find and secure the bar receipt for the customer who later engaged in drunk driving and caused this accident, which the restaurant did everything they could to hide. That receipt showed that the waitress involved, received a $100 tip for a $50 bar tab from the defendant driver. This was key to establishing the restaurant’s negligence in failing to monitor the skill level and TIPS enforcement pattern of this waitress. If a jury ever saw this receipt, and saw the financial ‘reward’ given to this waitress for over-serving this drunk driver, it would have been devastating to the defense and to the restaurant.

Continue reading

|

A recent case settlement in the area of liquor liability, shows that despite improvement in recent years, there are still bars and restaurants that continue to negligently serve alcohol to intoxicated patrons, when they clearly shouldn’t be doing so.

This recent case involved serious injuries that two female drivers sustained in a Massachusetts car accident when the pickup truck they were traveling in on Interstate 95, was rammed from behind by a drunk driver. The vehicle in which the two plaintiffs were driving was caused to roll over several times before coming to rest on its side, and the occupants sustained serious injuries. The driver of the pickup, 29, suffered multiple rib fractures. The 32-year-old passenger suffered a severe open fracture of her right tibia and fibula, and required several surgeries for the surgical implantation of a metal rod. The offending driver was arrested at the scene, but refused a breathalyzer test, and therefore, no blood alcohol test was resultantly available to introduce as evidence that this driver was intoxcated at the time of the accident, at either the criminal, or civil trial which the plaintiffs instituted against the defendant for monetary damages. Notwithstanding, at deposition during the litigation of the civil case, (note: for obvious reasons, this defendant never would have admitted the following at his criminal trial, but in the civil trial, it was the bar that was the party really “on the hook” not him,) the defendant driver testified that he has consumed approximately 12 beers and four shots of liquor at the bar he was drinking at on the evening in question. That’s damaging evidence enough of negligence against the bar, but it gets worse: Evidence in the form of bar receipts – which the bar did its best to conceal from the plaintiffs’ attorney – showed that the waitress who served the defendant all these drinks, was given a $100 tip for doing so (in other words, for not “shutting off” the customer).

So where does this liability for personal injuires come from, what is it called, and why should the bar owners be held liable for the actions of an irresponsible and greedy waitress? All good questions. First, this type of civil liability – popularly known as liquor liability but known within the legal profession as “Dram Shop Liability” (the term comes from historical case law) – arises from the legal duty that a restaurant, bar or tavern owner owes to its patrons as well as to members of the general public, to train, supervise and monitor its bartenders and wait staff in the responsible practice of serving alcohol. That training, almost universally provided under an industry program known as TIPS (for Training for Intervention ProcedureS.) TIPS is a nationwide program used almost universally in the restaurant and bar industries, to educate and train servers and wait staff in the responsible service, sale, and consumption of alcohol. The whole point is designed to prevent negligence and resulting personal injuries that may follow from patrons becoming overly intoxicated.

Continue reading

|

File this new development under “Solve One Problem; Create Another.” For years, car manufacturers have tried to make their vehicles operate as quietly as possible. Helps keep noise pollution down, and helps maximize the sounds produced by the internal audio system, right? Those efforts usually revolved around minimizing engine noise in the only real engine most people had ever known – the internal combustion engine. But along the way, and somewhat unexpectedly, came the hybrid gas-electric engine, and with it as new phenomenon: A completely silent car when “on” but not moving, or moving at slow speeds (usually under 15 MPH.)

What’s the problem? When hybrid cars are “idling” at a stop sign, or moving but at speeds usually less than 15 MPH, they are powered by the hushed electric motor of the electric-gas hybrid. The gasoline-powered engine only kicks in when speeds exceed 15 MPH – at that point, the engine produces sound similar to most car engines you now hear. It doesn’t take a genius to see the trouble here: More motor vehicle accidents and injuries when hybrids are at stop signs, or moving slowly. Since a great majority of these types of motor vehicle accidents will happen when cars have been stopped at intersections or moving slowly in parking lots, a great many of them will likely involve pedestrians. By the way: Don’t be fooled into thinking that a pedestrian can’t be hurt that badly by a motor vehicle traveling at 15 MPH or less. Trust me: A person can be killed or seriously injured when hit by a car traveling at even 10 MPH. I’ve seen it before: Horrific injuries involving paralysis, even death.

This is no small problem. As hybrids proliferate and major auto manufacturers prepare to launch battery-electric only vehicles (even more silent than hybrids,) many see the growing injury threat to pedestrians. To deal with this unexpected problem, automotive engineers are researching how they might actually add some noise back into the hybrid models now being manufactured. But how to do this without re-creating the noise-polluting car engines that most people always hated? Nissan is now developing the “Leaf”, their version of an all-electric (vs. hybrid) car, and they’ve recently tested some of their ideas for “artificial” noises to officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as well as focus groups. Some possibilities? A Chime; a melody from a popular song; even possibly a futuristic “whirring.” There is also some talk that Congress may issue a measure requiring vehicles to produce “non-visual” warnings to pedestrians. Cars such as Tesla’s Roadster, Nissan’s Leaf and General Motors’ Volt, will depend entirely on battery electric power, and may be even quieter than existing hybrids.

Continue reading

|

In a case that one can only hope will produce civil justice (vs. the criminal justice that’s already been obtained,) the parents of a 16-year-old Massachusetts murder victim have filed a $1 million lawsuit against her killer and his mother.

Joshua C. Whitaker, 23, was sentenced to life in the maximum security prison in Shirley, Massachusetts, after being convicted of the grisly murder of Kelsea L. Owens, who was murdered in Hampden, Massachusetts on August 15 2006. At his trial, Whitaker’s defense lawyer admitted to jurors that Whitaker bludgeoned Owens with pruning shears, a log and a set of dumbbells. Whitaker admitted to a paramedic: “I’m a murderer.” Testimony at the defendant’s murder trial established that Whitaker’s mother, Linda Whitaker, is the person who initially called police to report “a girl being assaulted and missing.”

Now, a wrongful death lawsuit has been filed in Hampden Superior Court against the Whitakers. The suit alleges that Joshua Whitaker had a “long history of violent and deviant behavior,” and centrally, claims that Whitaker’s mother, who he lived with, Linda Whitaker, knew or should have known about her son’s violent personality, and undertaken efforts or measures to monitor or control it. The Owens’ lawsuit alleges that Joshua Whitaker had previously been undergoing psychiatric treatment for violent tendencies, that his mother Linda Whitaker knew this, that she was at home at the time of the murder, and that she should have known her son had not been complying with his psychiatric treatment and medication regimen for a considerable period of time prior to the murder. In legal parlance, the suit alleges that “Linda Whitaker negligently and carelessly failed to properly monitor, supervise and observe Joshua Whitaker, who she knew … had a history of violent and deviant behavior.” The complaint also accuses the Whitakers of “conscious pain and suffering” and infliction of emotional distress.

Continue reading

|

In my previous posts on this multi-part subject of tort reform, I discussed what tort reform is, who is behind it, and what it would do to the average Massachusetts citizen, in taking away your legal right to recover for injuries you’ve suffered because of someone else’s negligence.

Now I’ll address the twisted story of what the insurance industry uses as ‘Exhibit A’ when they argue for tort reform: The famous “McDonald’s Coffee Case”. You’ll see that what this case is really “Exhibit A” for, is not telling the full story or reporting all the facts, which results in complete disinformation. (Otherwise known as “spin.”)

This is the case of Liebeck vs. McDonald’s Corp. Stella Leibeck was a 79 year-old grandmother in New Mexico, who suffered third degree burns over her legs and lower abdomen after she purchased coffee at a McDonald’s drive-through, back in 1992. Liebeck sued McDonald’s for producing coffee that was so hot it couldn’t be handled safely, never mind actually consumed safely. This type of case is known as a Product Liability suit. A jury awarded her $160,000 in damages, which reflected their determination that Ms. Liebeck was 20 per cent at fault for the accident (she spilled the coffee on herself.)

Continue reading