Search court records - party Emily Moellers, page 8

Defendant Dr. Steven D Rauch's Motion to Dismiss The Plaintiff's Complaint

Document Crimmins, III, Francis T vs. Rauch, Dr. Steven D et al, 2284CV01658 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Suffolk County Civil (02/27/2023)

As grounds for this Motion, Dr. Rauchstates that the Plaintiffs claim against him for medical negligence must be dismissed pursuant to Mass.

The Complaint was filed on or around July 21, 2022, more than five years after Rauch’s treatment of Mr. Crimmins.

The Plaintiff failed to timely file suit within the applicable three-year statute of limitations.

In support of this Motion, the Defendant incorporates the Memorandum of Law filed contemporaneously herewith.

Date Filed 2/27/2023 11:41 AM Superior Court - Suffolk Docket Number 2284CV01658 Wherefore, the Defendant, Steven Rauch, M.D., respectfully requests that this honorable court dismiss Count | of the Plaintiff's Complaint, with prejudice, pursuant to Mass.

Cite Document

Analyze

Dr. Steven D Rauch's Memorandum in support of His Motion To Dismiss The Plaintiff's Complaint

Document Crimmins, III, Francis T vs. Rauch, Dr. Steven D et al, 2284CV01658 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Suffolk County Civil (02/27/2023)

Wherefore, the Defendant, Steven Rauch, M.D., respectfully requests that this honorable court dismiss Count | of the Plaintiff's Complaint, with prejudice, pursuant to Mass.

In reviewing a motion to dismiss, it is appropriate for a court to considerthe actual allegations of the complaint and facts contained within any attached exhibits, as well as any matters of public record and documents relied upon in the complaintitself.

LEXIS 545 at *10 (holding that the statute of limitations clock started to run whenplaintiff was diagnosed with cancer and the patient realized that primary care physician may have missed the diagnosis); Lee v. Lahey Clinic Med.

Rather, it is clear, from the face of the Complaintthat by April 9, 2019, Mr. Crimmins wason “reasonable notice” that Dr. Rauch’s allegedly negligent reporting error regarding the results of the CT scan may have caused a delay in diagnosis of PLF, thereby starting the statute of limitations clock.

Date Filed 2/27/2023 11:41 AM Superior Court - Suffolk Docket Number 2284CV01658 From this point in time, Crimminshad “three years to discovery whether the physician committed a breach of the standard of care and whetherthe theory of causation is supported by the evidence, and if so, to commencecivil suit.” Parr, 475 Mass.

Cite Document

Analyze

Plaintiff, Defendants Amir Zamani Personal Representative for the Estate of Kian H Zamani, Thomas Hamilton, M.D., Konstantinos Papadakis, M.D., Boston Children's Hospital, Somala (as amended) MD Mohammed's Joint Motion to Amend the tracking order03/18/2022 11:00 AM Malpractice Tribunal

Document Amir Zamani Personal Representative for the Estate of Kian H Zamani vs. Hamilton, M.D., Thomas et al, 2084CV02623 Massachusetts State, Superior Court, Suffolk County Civil (02/24/2023)

Date Filed 2/24/2023 1:37 PM Superior Court - Suffolk Docket Number 2084CV02623 Decedent, Kian Zamani, at BCH on September5, 2018.

Hamilton, and Papadakis failed to inform Plaintiff and his wife, Marianeli Rodriguez, of the serious risk that an infant could experience a deadly CO2 embolism during the diagnostic laparoscopic procedure the Defendants recommended.Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendantdoctors failed to present Kian’s parents with any reasonable alternative to performing immediate surgery.

Hamilton and Mohammed,the Tribunal issued a finding for the Plaintiff that the evidence if properly substantiated was sufficient to raise a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry.

On October 20, 2022, the Parties filed a joint motion to amend the tracking order to allow for an additional four months of discovery to complete depositions.

Date Filed 2/24/2023 1:37 PM Superior Court - Suffolk Docket Number 2084CV02623 date set Caseshall be 03/05/2024 09/15/2024 Final pre-trial conference held and/orfirm trial resolved and judgmentshall issue b WHEREFORE,for the reasons set forth above, the Parties respectfully request that the Court allow the Parties’ joint motion.

Cite Document

Analyze