• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 54-68 of 1,289 results

Amy P Carey Personal Representative for the Estate of Pierrette Powers vs. Lauer...

Docket 1577CV00849, Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Essex County (May 20, 2015)
Case TypeTorts
TagsTort, Civil
Plaintiff Carey, Amy P
Defendant Lauermann, M.D., Scott D
Defendant Le, M.D., Daniel S
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Stuart, Denise vs. Rice M. D., Phillip

Docket 1477CV01839, Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Essex County (Dec. 1, 2014)
Case TypeTorts
TagsTort, Civil
Plaintiff Stuart, Denise
Defendant Rice M. D., Phillip
Other interested party Romano, John
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Endorsement on Motion for leave to Convert Rule 16 Conference from in Person Hearing to Zoom (#61.0): ALLOWED (em. 5/10/23)

Document Puc, Joseph S. vs. Hershman, M.D., Stuart H. et al, 2079CV00057 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Hampden County (05/10/2023)
CORPORATIOND/B/AMASSACHUSETTS (haceoseGENERAL HOSPITAL __) ‘. )
The parties to the above-referenced matter, by and through counsel, jointly movethis Honorable Court to convert the Rule 16 Conference currently scheduled for Thursday, May 11, 2023, from an in-person Hearing to a Zoom Conference.
As groundsfor this motion, the parties wea et ae BPibet es state that they have conferred regarding potential availability fortrial, and regarding attendance at the upcoming Trial Assignment Conference, and if the Court is amenable to the change,it would limit the potential for further COVID exposure, while also saving the cost and time of the ~ parties to travel to the Court for this Conference.
Given that this Motionis based in judicial efficiency, and provided the Court is able to accommodate this change, the parties respectfully request that Thursday’s 2:00pmtrial assignment be converted to Zoom.
WHEREFORE,the parties jointly request that this motion be allowed, and the Trial Assignment Conference be converted to Zoom or Telephonic Hearing.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Joseph S. Puc, Stuart H. Hershman, M.D., Shivam Narendra Upadhyaya, M.D., Dana R. Sajed, M.D., The Massachusetts General Hospital, Inc., Camden Burns, M.D.'s Joint Motion for leave to Convert Rule 16 Conference from in Person Hearing to Zoom

Document Puc, Joseph S. vs. Hershman, M.D., Stuart H. et al, 2079CV00057 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Hampden County (05/09/2023)
The parties to the above-referenced matter, by and through counsel, jointly movethis Honorable Court to convert the Rule 16 Conference currently scheduled for Thursday, May 11, 2023, from an in-person Hearing to a Zoom Conference.
As groundsfor this motion, the parties state that they haveconferred regarding potential availability fortrial, andregarding attendance|— at the upcoming Trial Assignment Conference, and if the Court is amenable to the change,it would limit the potential for further COVID exposure, while also saving the cost and time ofthe parties to travel to the Court for this Conference.
Given that this Motion is based in judicial efficiency, and provided the Court is able to accommodate this change, the parties respectfully request that Thursday’s 2:00pm trial assignment be converted to Zoom.
| WHEREFORE,the parties jointly request that this motion be allowed, and the Trial Assignment Conference be converted to Zoom or Telephonic Hearing.
Joseph Delisi, Esq. Daniel Wu, Esq. /JLD/ Chris Lavoie, Esq. Joseph L. Delisi, Esq. Dunn and Dunn 11 BeaconStreet 11th Floor, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02108.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Kimbrough, Toshio vs. Konstantin Balonov, M.D. et al

Docket 1484CV03473, Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Suffolk County Civil (Nov. 5, 2014)
Case TypeTorts
TagsTort, Civil
Plaintiff Kimbrough, Toshio
Defendant Konstantin Balonov, M.D.
Defendant Clark, R.N., C.R.N.A., Hannah R.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Complaint electronically filed.

Document Nichols, Laurie et al vs. Loeffler, MD, Jay, 2384CV00994 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Suffolk County Civil (04/28/2023)
WHEREFORE,theplaintiff, Laurie Nichols, prays judgmentagainst the defendant, Jay Loeffler, M.D., in an amount whichis just and appropriate to compensate her for her injuries, together with interest and costs.
WHEREFORE,theplaintiff, Laurie Nichols, prays judgment against the defendant, Jay Loeffler, M.D., in an amount whichis just and appropriate to compensate her for her injuries, together with interest and costs.
WHEREFORE,theplaintiff, Laurie Nichols, prays judgmentagainst the defendant, Jay Loeffler, M.D., in an amount whichis just and appropriate to compensate her for her injuries, together with interest and costs.
WHEREFORE,theplaintiff, Laurie Nichols, prays judgment against the defendant, Jay Loeffler, M.D., in an amount whichis just and appropriate to compensate her for her injuries, together with interest and costs.
Asthe direct and proximate result of the negligence, breach of warranties, and failure to obtain informed consent of the defendant, Jay Loeffler, M.D., the plaintiff, Shelly Nichols, has had severely restricted the benefit of the society, companionship, and consortium ofher said wife, all to her great damage.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Answer to amended complaint and claim for a trial by jury as to all issues Applies To: Hershman, M.D., Stuart H. (Defendant)

Document Puc, Joseph S. vs. Hershman, M.D., Stuart H. et al, 2079CV00057 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Hampden County (04/21/2023)
The defendant, Stuart Hershman, M.D., neither admits nor denies the allegationsset forth in this paragraph becausehe is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and calls upon the plaintiff to prove the same.
Date Filed 4/21/2023 5:14 PM Superior Court - Hampden Docket Number 2079CV00057 Asphrased, the defendant, Stuart Hershman, M.D., neither admits nor denies the allegations set forth in this paragraph andcalls uponthe plaintiff to prove the same.
The defendant, Stuart Hershman, M.D., neither admits nor denies the allegationsset forth in this paragraph becausehe is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and calls upon the plaintiff to prove the same.
The defendant, Stuart Hershman, M.D., neither admits nor denies the allegationsset forth in this paragraph becausehe is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and calls uponthe plaintiff to prove the same.
The defendant, Stuart Hershman, M.D., neither admits nor denies the allegationsset forth in this paragraph becausehe is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and calls uponthe plaintiff to prove the same.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

ORDER: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL ASSIGNMENT CONFERENCE ORDER Final Pre Trial Conference: 4/17/2025 at 2pm, Final Trial Conference will take place on July 1, 2025 at 2pm Jury Trial is scheduled for July 8, 2025. Motions in limine (Rule 9A) voir dire requests and proposed Jury Instructions shall be filed by June 26, 2025 and the motion (s) wil be heard on July 1, 2025 at 2pm

Document McCormack, Irene vs. O'Connell, D.O., Michael et al, 2277CV00075 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Essex County (04/20/2023)
Length oftrial: 7 to 10half days Type of case: Dr, Brigham & Womans/ Femalestrokepatient After a pre-trial conference on April 13, 2023, the Court HEREBY ORDERSthefollowing: 1.
Jury Trial is scheduled for July 8, 2025. a. Translator or other accommodations needed?
e. Proposed exhibitsas to which there is no agreement on admissibility shall be submitted to the Clerk on or before July 1, 2025.
The dates and deadlines listed above were established after consultation with counsel.
Inability to meet interim deadlines may not be good cause for continuing thetrial late DATED: April 19, 2023 (fan
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Received from Defendant Cambridge Health Alliance Doing Business as Whidden Memorial Hospital: Answer, Affirmative defenses and jury claim ;

Document Ellis, Damon A. vs. Cambridge Health Alliance Doing Business as Whidden Memorial Hospital et al, 2284CV02949 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Suffolk County Civil (04/18/2023)
To the extent a responseis required, the defendantis presently without knowledge or information sufficient to formabeliefas to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 and calls uponthe plaintiff to prove the same.
To the extent a responseis required, the defendantis presently without knowledge or information sufficient to formabeliefas to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 and calls uponthe plaintiff to prove the same.
To the extent a responseis required, the defendantis presently without knowledge or information sufficient to formabeliefas to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 and calls upon the plaintiff to prove the same.
The defendantis presently without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 and calls uponthe plaintiff to prove the same.
Date Filed 4/18/2023 3:35 PM Superior Court - Suffolk Docket Number 2284CV02949 The defendantstates that this is a medical malpractice action which is required to be heard by a tribunal pursuant to M.G.L.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Received from Defendant Gaufberg, M.D., Slava: Answer, Affirmative defenses, and jury claim;

Document Ellis, Damon A. vs. Cambridge Health Alliance Doing Business as Whidden Memorial Hospital et al, 2284CV02949 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Suffolk County Civil (04/18/2023)
To the extent a responseis required, the defendantis presently without knowledge or information sufficient to formabeliefas to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 and calls upon the plaintiff to prove the same.
To the extent a responseis required, the defendantis presently without knowledge or information sufficient to formabeliefas to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 and calls upon the plaintiff to prove the same.
To the extent a responseis required, the defendantis presently without knowledge or information sufficient to formabeliefas to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 and calls upon the plaintiff to prove the same.
Date Filed 4/18/2023 3:35 PM Superior Court - Suffolk Docket Number 2284CV02949 The defendantis presently without knowledgeor information sufficient to form a
Date Filed 4/18/2023 3:35 PM Superior Court - Suffolk Docket Number 2284CV02949 The defendantis presently without knowledgeor information sufficient to form a
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Answer to original complaint Applies To: Trotta PA-C, Christina (Defendant)

Document Ellis, Damon A. vs. Cambridge Health Alliance Doing Business as Whidden Memorial Hospital et al, 2284CV02949 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Suffolk County Civil (03/29/2023)
The Defendant, Christina Trotta PA-C has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and calls upon the Plaintiff to prove the same to the extent necessary at the time of trial.
The Defendant, Christina Trotta PA-C has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and calls upon the Plaintiff to prove the same to the extent necessary at the time of trial.
The Defendant, Christina Trotta PA-C has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and calls upon the Plaintiff to prove the same to the extent necessary at the time of trial.
The Defendant, Christina Trotta PA-C has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and calls upon the Plaintiff to prove the same to the extent necessary at the time of trial.
The Defendant, Christina Trotta PA-C has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and calls upon the Plaintiff to prove the same to the extent necessary at the time of trial.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Received from Defendant Seuert, M.D., Thomas: Answer with claim for trial by jury;

Document Ellis, Damon A. vs. Cambridge Health Alliance Doing Business as Whidden Memorial Hospital et al, 2284CV02949 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Suffolk County Civil (03/24/2023)
Date Filed 3/24/2023 12:29 PM Superior Court - Suffolk Docket Number 2284CV02949 The Defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph and calls upon the Plaintiff to prove the same.
Date Filed 3/24/2023 12:29 PM Superior Court - Suffolk Docket Number 2284CV02949 this paragraph do purport or could be construed to state a claim against the Defendant, the allegations are expressly denied.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Thomas Seufert, M.D., demands judgment against the Plaintiff in an amount, which is just and appropriate to compensate him for his attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Thomas Seufert, M.D., demands judgment against the Plaintiff in an amount, which is just and appropriate to compensate him for his attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Thomas Seufert, M.D., demands judgment against the Plaintiff in an amount, whichis just and appropriate to compensate him for his attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Endorsement on Motion for new trial (#116.0): DENIED see separate order. (dated 3/20/23) notice sent 3/23/23

Document Stanton, Mary J et al vs. Dolan, M.D., Brian T et al, 1884CV00763 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Suffolk County Civil (03/23/2023)
‘NOW COMEthePlaintiffs, Mary J. Stanton, Leona Stracqualursi, and Morgana Manning, and respectfully move this Honorable Court to vacate thejury verdict in the above ' referenced case and set this case down for newtrial pursuant to Mass.
Plaintiffs incorporate herein their Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial Usider Mass.
P. Rule 59 and further state that when reviewing this case as a whole, there is a suggestion that there was a miscarriage ofjustice which warrants a new trial, based on, | including but not limited to, expert testimony proffered by Defendants Chung, Dolan, and South Shore Hospital without answering expert interrogatories, evidence proffered by Defendant Ansay.
| | : regarding conductofthirdparties without disclosure, and finally, improper argument by counsel \ for Dr. Chung, Dr. Dolan, and South Shore Hospital.
RICHARD H. CHUNG, M.D., and SOUTH SHORE
cite Cite Document
Analyze

ORDER: on plaintiff's motion for new trial (No. 116) motion is DENIED. (please see paper No. 120 for details). (dated 3/20/23) notice sent 3/23/23

Document Stanton, Mary J et al vs. Dolan, M.D., Brian T et al, 1884CV00763 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Suffolk County Civil (03/23/2023)
Th2se defendants provided expert disclosures in accordance with Superior Court Rule 30B on March 7, 2022.
Theory of Causation | || Pluintiffs argue that they were prejudiced because defendant Ansay stated in herinitial Answersta Interrogatories that no third party caused or contributed to plaintiff Stanton’s injuries,| but then took the position during trial that Stanton’s injuries were caused by occurrence of a venous injarct during surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
1 For the rezsonsset forth in the defendants’ opposition, the Court is skeptical that the deficienciesthe plaintiffs allege were of any significance, in any event.
Use ofthe Word “Reasonable” Plaintiffs argue that counsel’s characterization of Dolan’s and Chung’s actions as “feasonab.e”during opening statement and closing argument confused the jury as to the applicable standard ofliability.
How counsel characterized his client’s aclions was not relevantin light ofthejury’s knowledgeof the proper standard of liability Accordingly, the Motion for New Trial is DENIED.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Answer to amended complaint and jury demand Applies To: Burns, M.D., Camden (Defendant)

Document Puc, Joseph S. vs. Hershman, M.D., Stuart H. et al, 2079CV00057 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Hampden County (03/20/2023)
Date Filed 3/20/2023 3:12 PM Superior Court - Hampden Docket Number 20790V00057 The Massachusetts General Hospital, March 6 {Post-Op Day 13) 13.
Date Filed 3/20/2023 3:12 PM Superior Court - Hampden Docket Number 20790V00057 paragraph, as the said allegations do not pertain to this defendant, and, therefore, do not call for a responsive pleading.
complaint be dismissed, with prejudice, and that he recover his counsel fees, costs, and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.
complaint be dismissed, with prejudice, and that he recover his counsel fees, costs, and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.
The defendant further states that the plaintiff may not proceed on the present action until such time as a medical malpractice tribunal has been convened to review the plaintiff’s allegations 2780784.v1
cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... >>