Articles Posted in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of this complaint under the statute of repose, holding that a claim alleging that a building contractor committed an unfair or deceptive act under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 2 and 9 by violating Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 142A, 17(10) is subject to the six-year statute of repose set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, 2B. In 2016, Plaintiff brought this action alleging that renovations performed in 2000 to 2001 by Defendants caused a fire in her home in 2012. A superior court judge dismissed the complaint as untimely under the six-year statute of repose. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s chapter 93A claim was sufficiently tort-like to bring it within the ambit of the statute of repose; and (2) because this action was commenced more than six years after the work was completed, it was barred by chapter 260, section 2B, and therefore properly dismissed. View "Bridgwood v. A.J. Wood Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

by
At issue was whether Steward Carney Hospital owed Mary Miller, who was fatally stabbed in her home by N, a former patient of the hospital, and her family a duty of care, and if so, whether the hospital breached that duty when one of its physicians released N from involuntary psychiatric commitment. Plaintiffs, a representative of Miller’s estate and the mother of Miller’s granddaughter, brought this tort action against the hospital. A superior court judge allowed Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the hospital did not owe Plaintiffs any duty of care. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the hospital did not owe the victim or her family any duty of care at the time of the killing because the order of civil commitment to hold N did not impose an independent duty on the hospital for N’s treatment and did not require the hospital to exercise any medical judgment as to the appropriateness of N’s release. View "Williams v. Steward Health Care System, LLC" on Justia Law

by
Neither a controlled affiliate nor the manager of a controlled affiliate is a “public employer” as defined in the Tort Claims Act (Act), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, 2. Plaintiff allegedly injured himself when he slipped and fell while descending stairs at his apartment in a public housing development. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Farmington Housing Authority (authority); Musterfield Place, LLC, a controlled affiliate of the authority, which owns the property (owner); and FHA Musterfield Manager, LLC, the managing agent for the owner (manager). The owner and manager moved for partial summary judgment arguing that they should be deemed public employers under the Act and therefore may not be held liable for damages in excess of $100,000. The trial judge denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the owner and manager were not public employers under the facts of this case. View "Acevedo v. Musterfield Place, LLC" on Justia Law

by
A pharmacy has a limited legal duty to take reasonable steps to notify a patient and his or her prescribing physician of the need for prior authorization each time the patient tries to fill a prescription. Only the pharmacy, and not the physician or the patient, is notified by a health insurer when a prescribing physician must complete a prior authorization form and submit it to the insurer. In this case, prior authorization was necessary for Yarushka Rivera to obtain insurance coverage for Topamax, a medication she needed to control life-threatening seizures. When Rivera reached age nineteen, her insurer refused to pay for the prescription because it had not received the necessary prior authorization form. Rivera, who was unable to afford the medication without insurance, suffered a fatal seizure at the age of nineteen. Plaintiff brought this action for wrongful death and punitive damages against Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc. The superior court concluded that Walgreens had no legal duty to Rivera to notify Rivera’s prescribing physician of the need for prior authorization. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Walgreens owed a legal duty of care to take reasonable steps to notify Rivera and her prescribing physician of the need for prior authorization each time Rivera tried to fill her prescription. View "Correa v. Schoeck" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the motion judge allowing summary judgment for Defendants, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and individuals associated with MIT, in this wrongful death action arising out of the suicide of Plaintiff’s son. Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that Defendants’ negligence caused the death of his son, who was a student at MIT. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was allowed, and Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was denied. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) in certain circumstances not present in this case, a special relationship and a corresponding duty to take reasonable measures to prevent suicide may be created by a university and its student; but (2) here, the superior court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants on the tort claims as a matter of law and properly denied summary judgment on the workers’ compensation claim. View "Nguyen v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology" on Justia Law

by
A plaintiff who alleges that he was injured from his use of a generic drug because of a failure to warn of the drug’s side effects cannot bring a common-law general negligence claim against the brand-name manufacturer that created the warning label. The plaintiff, however, may bring a common-law recklessness claim against the brand-name manufacturer if it intentionally failed to update the label on its drug, knowing or having reason to know of an unreasonable risk of death or grave bodily injury associated with its use. Further, a plaintiff who is injured by a generic drug due to a failure to warn cannot bring a claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 9 against a brand-name manufacturer that did not advertise, offer to sell, or sell that drug because such failure did not occur in the conduct of “trade or commerce” as defined in section 1(b). In the instant case, the trial judge dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Merck & Co, Inc. asserting negligence for failure to warn and a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 9. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order dismissing Plaintiff’s common-law claim and remanded with instructions that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend his complaint and affirmed the order dismissing Plaintiff’s chapter 93A claim. View "Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

by
The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act protected a school district and its employees from liability for negligence in failing to act reasonably to prevent the bullying that led to a public elementary school student’s injuries. Matthew Mumbauer was seriously injured when a classmate pushed him down a stairwell at school. Plaintiffs, Matthews’ parents, brought claims against a number of defendants. The superior court judge allowed a motion dismiss all claims against the city of Lynn, Lynn Public Schools, and their public employees. The Appeals Court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the public defendants could not be held liable under the Act for not acting in a manner that ensured Matthew’s safety. View "Cormier v. City of Lynn" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order denying the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss the civil complaint filed by Plaintiff seeking compensation under the erroneous convictions statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258D. Plaintiff filed the complaint after the appeals court reversed his conviction for unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon. The superior court denied the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case to the superior court with directions to enter judgment for the Commonwealth, holding that Plaintiff’s conviction was not overturned on grounds tending to establish his innocence, thereby rendering him ineligible for compensation under the statute. View "Peterson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

by
In this case filed by a Massachusetts-based company (“LevelUp”) against a California-based company (“Punchh”), alleging defamation and related causes of action connected with Punchh’s allegedly false statements about LevelUp to LevelUp’s prospective clients, the superior court allowed Punchh’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that it would not comport with due process to hale Punchh into a Massachusetts court. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded this matter to the superior court for further proceedings, holding (1) prior to exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, a judge must determine that doing so comports with both the forum’s long-arm statute and the requirements of the United States Constitution; and (2) the requisite statutory analysis did not occur in this case. View "SCVNGR, Inc. v. Punchh, Inc." on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment of the superior court finding that Defendant, an attorney, was negligent for his part in financing a real estate loan to Plaintiff. The judge found that Defendant had conferred apparent authority on Bernard Laverty to act as his agent for the loan. Laverty then persuaded Plaintiff to use a portion of the loan from Defendant to make a secured side loan to Laverty. The loan was unsecured, however, and Laverty defaulted. The judge found that, pursuant to the rule that imputes the knowledge of an agent to the principle, Defendant was negligent for failing to inform Plaintiff that the side loan was not secured. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the facts failed to establish that Laverty had the apparent authority to bind Defendant with respect to the side loan. View "Fergus v. Ross" on Justia Law