Court to weigh right of parents to sue employer
The Supreme Judicial Court is slated to decide whether the parents of a murdered high school senior have the right to file a wrongful-death lawsuit against the pharmacy where their son worked as a part-time clerk.
In Saab, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy (SJC No. 10193), the SJC will determine if a lower court judge properly held that the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act prevented the Superior Court from accepting subject matter jurisdiction.
Tamara L. Ricciardone, the author of "Workers' Compensation in Massachusetts," said a ruling against CVS would be "incredibly significant."
"If the court decides in favor of the parents, it would mean that any family member who is not financially dependent on the employee can step in and sue," said Ricciardone, who is not involved in the suit.
"This case will turn on the court's interpretation of who is ‘an employee' under the statute, and whether financial dependence is the distinguishing characteristic that prevents an employee's family member from suing an employer outside of the workers' compensation statute."
While the law is not as clear with respect to financially independent parents, Ricciardone, a lawyer at Smith & Duggan in Lincoln, said an injured employee would certainly be barred from filing suit.
"The only way an employee can waive their right to benefits is if they to do it at the time they are hired," she said. "If they don't waive their right immediately, they can't later turn around and say, ‘I don't want them. I'm going to sue you.'"
But where the murder happened during the teen's shift, William J. Dailey Jr. of Sloane & Walsh in Boston, who represents defendant CVS, wrote that the workers' compensation statute precludes the family from bringing a wrongful-death action against the employer.
Lawyers Defend Wrongful Death Suit Against City
Philadelphia - Lawyers hired to represent Danieal Kelly's estate rebutted criticisms yesterday they had been hired only to enrich her parents and take advantage of the tragic situation. They said the press and city officials have gotten the story all wrong.
Center City trial lawyer George Bochetto said, if monies were awarded in the wrongful death lawsuit brought against the city, the girls' siblings could get a cut.
During a Center City news conference, the attorney attempted to clear the air about the lawsuit brought against the city's Department of Human Services.
Mr. Bochetto demanded a public apology from the mayor, the district attorney and the local media for "their factually inaccurate and intentionally inflammatory reporting" of Ms. Kelly's death case.
Last week, Mr. Mildenberg hired Mr. Bochetto to help him address claims about the media's and the city's depiction of his representation of the girl's estate as well as her parents. Mr. Mildenberg claims to have received death threats, and his reputation has allegedly been smeared, even though he admitted the wrongful death suit could amount to monetary damages for Ms. Kelly's parents.
Mr. Mildenberg and Eric Zajac, the two lawyers hired in the civil suit, acknowledged Andrea and Daniel Kelly could potentially benefit should they be exonerated from pending criminal neglect and homicide charges. The lawyers claim to have negotiated, with Ms. Kelly's parents, a settlement of one-third of any judgment to a trust fund for her 11 siblings.
"The siblings of young Danieal Kelly are entitled to compensation," Mr. Bochetto told the press. "I don't think I have to tell anybody just how destitute and poor these siblings are."
Any monetary decision for the children would be contingent on the parents' receiving an award.
When news broke of the parents' wrongful death suit last week, Mayor Michael A. Nutter called it "insane, obscene and disgusting." When asked if he would issue a public apology yesterday, Douglas Oliver, the mayor's press secretary, said the mayor stands by his comments.
"This sad, sickening legal circus deserves no further attention or comment," the mayor said. District Attorney Lynne Abraham released a statement saying she would not comment on the civil suit, but she remains focused on the criminal charges brought forth in the grand-jury report.
News articles and Internet blogs call Mr. Mildenberg a "money-grubbing lawyer," a "hearse chaser," etc. Mr. Bochetto called the charges lies.
Widow of Wrongful Death Case Only to Receive $1.6 million
Modesto, California (JusticeNewsFlash.com) — It seems that there are more cases of medical malpractice today than in the past, and how can this be with the technological advancements of our time? The answer is doctor’s negligence. This is exemplified in a case involving the Stinnett couple of Modesto, California. On the afternoon of January 6, 2002, Mr. Stanley Stinnett, 49, was riding his Harley Davidson motorcycle when a dog leaped out in his path causing him to crash. He was airlifted to Memorial Medical Center where doctors found six broken ribs and complicated respiratory problems. After only five days, Stinnett’s doctor told him to go home and heal.
But before Doctor Tony Tam could discharge Mr. Stinnett, he passed away, chocking on his own vomit. According to the Stinnett’s attorney Stewart Tabak of Stockton, X-rays taken four hours before his death showed Stinnett had one gallon of liquid backed up in his stomach, which the Dr. Tam never drained. The 12 jurors concurred that Stinnett’s death was unnecessary, stating that Dr. Tam was negligent in his practice. The jury awarded $2.5 million in economic damages and $6 million in compensatory damages to Mrs. Stinnett, but unfortunately and somewhat unjustly, there is a 1975 law which caps non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits at $250,000. Therefore, Holly Stinnett will most likely only receive about $1.6 million of the suggested amounts.