Verdicts by Attorney: Michienzie, Paul

Michienzie, Paul; Maglio, David E.

The Bottaro Law Firm, LLC

Favorable Verdict

$875K Final pretrial demand | jury awarded $27K. New England trial team convinced a jury to see things their way and deny a Plaintiff a highly inflated claim for damages.

On November 4, 2024, Boston Managing Partner Paul Michienzie and Rhode Island Partner David Maglio obtained a favorable verdict in a trucking liability matter styled Plaintiff v. v. TST Trucking, Inc., et al.

In 2017, the Plaintiff suffered a disc herniation while participating in a CrossFit workout and underwent a surgery (L 4/5 discectomy and laminectomy) to repair the injury. Subsequently, in 2018, she was rear ended by a fully loaded tractor trailer driven by the insured driver/Defendant. Despite being diagnosed with a lumbar strain as a result of the accident, Plaintiff claimed the accident caused further, permanent injury to her back. Adding further complexity to the matter, Plaintiff injured her back two more times after the accident: once in 2019 and once in 2020, ultimately undergoing a second surgery in 2020 to repair a further disc herniation. 

Plaintiff claimed medical bills of $92,000 for the second alleged surgery and related care, and projected future medical costs of over $310,000 for treatment and for a spinal fusion. Her claims also included requests for compensation due to pain and suffering, leading to a final pretrial demand of $875,000. The Defendant conceded liability for the motor vehicle accident, but denied that it caused the extent of injury that the Plaintiff claimed. To the contrary, our attorneys and medical expert successfully demonstrated to the jury that the Plaintiff’s own timeline proved her reherniation was caused by the additional injuries that happened after the motor vehicle accident. Any additional costs therefore were not the responsibility of the Defendant.

Through careful analysis of Plaintiff’s injury history combined with compelling testimony of the Defense medical expert, our team successfully limited the damage award to compensate Plaintiff only for the actual cost of treatment related to the motor vehicle accident. Significantly, the jury did not award damages for any further treatment or surgery.

 Importantly, as a result of pre-trial Motions in Limine, the Court excluded all evidence of liability related to the cause of the accident and limited Plaintiff’s introduction of medical bills. In the end, the jury award totaled $27,000 or less than 5% of the amount sought by Plaintiff in the trial.

Brandon, Adam C; Michienzie, Paul

Keches Law Group (Jonathan D. Sweet and Patrick J. Nelligan)

Boston Managing Partner Paul Michienzie and Junior Partner, Adam C. Brandon successfully argued for dismissal of all claims against our client, Everett Property, LLC (“EPL”) in the premises liability / personal injury matter styled Bernabe and Humberto v. Everett Property, LLC, et al. pending in Essex Superior Court, MA. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were injured while moving heavy panes of glass into a warehouse leased by EPL. The thrust of our argument for dismissal was that as lessee of the warehouse, EPL did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs to prevent injury under the circumstances alleged because the instrumentality of the alleged harm was unrelated to any feature of the premises, i.e. property structure or grounds. Notably, the Court’s 6 page order not only granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety, but denied the plaintiffs an opportunity to further amend their complaint to assert a basis for liability against Everett Property, LLC absent the discovery of factual support to do so.  Plaintiffs’ action continues against the remaining and separately represented general contractor and subcontractor at the warehouse site. Read More.

Michienzie, Paul; Caron, Jason

Dismissal

Boston Managing Partner Paul Michienzie and Senior Partner, Jason Caron successfully argued for dismissal of multi-million dollar loss of consortium claims against our client, Bucher Municipal NA, Inc. (“Bucher”) in the products liability/personal injury matter styled Michael Whitney et al. v. Bucher Municipal NA, Inc. pending in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts.  Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged that Mr. Whitney’s wife, Jillian Whitney, was entitled to recovery for loss of consortium against Bucher, due to injuries Mr. Whitney allegedly suffered while operating a sewer cleaning truck sold by Bucher.  Mrs. Whitney’s claims were based on two distinct legal theories: one, that Mrs. Whitney had a viable loss of consortium claim based on Mr. Whitney’s underlying claim under M.G.L. Chapter 93A for alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices; two, that Mrs. Whitney could bring a direct claim as an injured party under Chapter 93A, separate and distinct from Mr. Whitney’s claim.  As to the first theory, our position was that under Massachusetts law, a loss of consortium claim must be based upon an underlying tort claim by the injured spouse, and that Chapter 93A, while tort-like in certain respects, does not qualify for that purpose.  As to the second, we argued that Mrs. Bucher lacks standing to bring an independent claim under 93A, because loss of consortium damages have never been recognized by a Massachusetts court as an independent category of damages.  After extensive briefing, the Court agreed with us on both points, dismissing Mrs. Whitney’s loss of consortium claims in their entirety. Read More.