Massachusetts Personal Injury Blog

A Brief Introduction About My Office

 

Thank you for visiting my blog.  Two months after becoming a lawyer, I started my practice in February 2005 in Charlestown, Massachusetts and decided to dedicate my career to representing the injured.  Since that time, my practice has quickly grown.  My office is now in downtown Boston and I have a great secretary, Tamara, who speaks Spanish and assists with all of my Spanish-speaking clients.

My Boston personal injury law practice is dedicated to representing those who have been injured in a motor vehicle accident, slip and fall accident, or any other type of accident case.  I have handled hundreds of personal injury cases and welcome the opportunity to work with you on your case.

I am extremely proud of the fact that many of my clients have referred their family and friends to me because I have earned their trust and confidence.  Most of all, I am proud of the personal attention I provide to all of my clients, no matter how small, or how big, the client's case.

Give me a call now at (617) 338 7400 and tell me about your personal injury case.  Consultations are always completely free.  Let me help you with your case.

Is Your Case Worth Pursuing?

There are a number of factors that come into play when an attorney decides whether or not to take on a personal injury case for a client.  Here are some, but not all, of those factors:

1) Has the Statute of Limitations run (it is different for different types of cases)?

2) Was the client injured?

3) Did the client seek medical treatment?

4) Did the client incur at least $2000 in medical bills (only applies to car accident cases)?

5) Is there insurance, and if not, does the person who caused the injuries have assets?

6) Can liability be established;

7) Is the case so small that it would make more sense for the client to handle the case by himself?

Can I Make a Claim for Massachusetts Workers Compensation Benefits?

If you have sustained a work-related injury, and missed at least five calendar days from work, then you are entitled to Massachusetts workers compensation coverage.  Generally, your employer's workers compensation insurer must pay your medical bills and part of your lost wages.  However, if the insurer denies your claim, it oftentimes makes sense to hire a Boston workers compensation attorney that can guide you through the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents legal process. 

The workers compensation process can be complicated, and I encourage you to contact me if you, a loved one, or a friend has been injured on the job.  Consultations at my office are always completely free of charge.

New Practice Area Announcement

My office is now handling Massachusetts workers compensation cases.  If you, a loved one, or a friend, has been injured on the job, call my office for a free consultation.  I look forward to helping you.

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

Proud to say that I am quoted in this week's Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

First Press Release Published for the Law Office of Christopher Earley

Here is the link: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/3/prweb10540031.htm

My New Video Uploaded to Youtube

 

Guest Post by Scott Johnson of Hickey & Turim, SC

Here is a great guest post by Scott Johnson of the Milwaukee personal injury and workers' compensation firm of Hickey & Turim SC regarding changes to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) which expands the definition of "disability" which ultimately helps employees.  Here is the guest post:

The ADAAA Changes the Rules of Accommodating Disabled Workers

In 2009, the new amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) went into effect. Under the former law, employees who sued for workplace disability discrimination would almost always lose, due to the court ruling that they were not disabled for the purposes of the ADA. Plaintiffs faced a nearly impossible situation: either their disability was too minor to be a covered disability under the ADA, or their disability was so great that employers could argue that accommodating the disability would cause undue hardship. To remedy this, the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act(ADAAA) changes the focus of workplace disability discrimination claims from arguing about the existence of a disability to the employer’s alleged discriminatory action. Expressly overturning Toyota v. Williams, the new law creates a broader definition of disability that employers must take into account.

In Toyota, the Supreme Court ruled that a long-term injury that prevents a worker from doing his job was not considered a disability for the purposes of the ADA. To be disabled, a condition must substantially interfere with a major life activity. Major life activities are activities that everyone does in their daily lives: cooking, cleaning, bathing, and brushing one’s teeth. Being able to work a particular job is not a major life activity. Therefore, if a condition simply interferes with one’s ability to perform a particular job, it is not a disability for the purposes of the ADA. The result of this decision was that anyone with a disability that did not totally incapacitate them was not disabled, and those who were incapacitated generally were impossible to accommodate at work, so they also lost.

The ADAAA expressly overturns this decision. It explicitly defines disabilities as conditions that interfere with major life activities, including working, and those that interfere with major organ systems. This much broader definition allows many claims to go forward that would never stand a chance under the old law. Both employers and employees need to be aware of the new rules. Any employer who refuses to accommodate or takes a hostile action against an employee based on a disability now can be held liable for workplace discrimination, and be subject to compensatory and punitive damages. This broad new definition makes a disability discrimination claim much easier to win in court.

Tips for Finding the Right Personal Injury Attorney for Your Case

If you are looking for the right Massachusetts personal injury attorney for your case, here are some important tips to keep in mind:

1) Ask your friends and family for a recommendation to someone they have used in the past;

2) Contact your local bar association lawyer referral service and get the names of a few local lawyers;

3) Meet with a few different lawyers and see who you are comfortable with;

4) Research online to learn more about the lawyer;

5) Read their profile, reviews and endorsements, if applicable, on Avvo.com 

Stryker Hip Implant Recall Claims

For people with Stryker hip implants, please be advised that Stryker has recalled two hip replacement products.  It has recalled the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II modular hip implant products.  The reason for the recall is that it was discovered these devices can cause metal poisoning to those with the implants, and cause very serious personal injuries.  Therefore, if you have one of these hip products implanted, you may have a claim if you have been harmed by either the Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II modular hip implant.

Guest Post Regarding Vibram Footwear Litigation

The following is a great guest post by Maryland Personal Injury Attorney Ronald Miller of Miller & Zois regarding a recent Massachusetts case involving Virbram footwear.  Here is this incisive post:

Critics of our legal system often complain that too many people - and too many lawyers - pursue frivolous lawsuits that do nothing but enrich plaintiffs. A recent Massachusetts case against Vibram, Bezdek v. Vibram USA, underscores this problem.

In this case, the maker of a “barefoot” running shoe, may feel like one of those cases at first glance. Upon further inspection I think the case raises a number of important legal issues that are meant to protect consumers and require ethical marketing from the manufacturers of consumer products.

Vibram produces, markets, and distributes “barefoot” running shoes. Like a number of other companies that have embraced the natural running trend from the past few years, Vibram promotes its “FiveFingers” shoe as a healthy and superior alternative to traditional running shoes. Vibram’s marketing materials claim that using the shoe would reduce injuries, improve posture, strengthen the body, and promote overall wellness. Vibram’s website also touted the scientific studies that support the company’s claims. These guarantees were working as the company had been experiencing 300% annual growth for the past five years.

In 2011 the plaintiff purchased the “Bikilas” model shoe for $104.90 from Vibram’s website. Plaintiff later sued Vibram claiming that the company used a false and misleading advertising campaign that misrepresented both the health benefits of the shoe line and the extent to which scientific research supports the company’s health claims. In support of her claim, plaintiff cited the fact that there is little scientific evidence on the subject and that numerous professional organizations have stated any marketing claims should be qualified as anecdotal. Plaintiff argued that had the company been honest about the unreliable support in favor of the product she would not have purchased the FiveFingers shoe. Vibram responded to plaintiff’s complaint with a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. To support an actionable legal claim, plaintiff must show that a deceptive act or practice by Virbram caused her an injury or loss. In other words, the plaintiff must prove that she suffered actual damages and that those damages were the result of a deceptive act or unfair practice.

The Massachusetts district court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently proved Vibram engaged in misleading advertising because the health benefits of their product had not been substantiated. The court noted that Vibram had actively engaged the research community in search of studies that supported the barefoot running movement. Because Vibram had been active in this search, the court found that it was unlikely that Vibram was ignorant of the uncertain benefits of their product. The plaintiff’s complaint did not allege physical injury, rather it claimed economic loss. Plaintiff’s argument is that deceptive marketing practices caused her to purchase a product she otherwise would not have bought. Under this “price premium” theory, the plaintiff’s loss is the difference between the shoes either having or not having the represented health benefits. For example, if the value of the shoes with the health benefit is $104.90 and the value of the shoes without the health benefit is $20, the plaintiff is entitled to the difference as economic damages. The district court judge agreed with the plaintiff and recognized the “price premium” theory. The litigation is still pending in the court and is scheduled for a hearing on defendant’s motion on February 28, 2013.

Again, while it might seem that this is a stupid lawsuit about a $100 purchase, this is also a lawsuit about deceptive advertising. The same law that prohibits unfair marketing with shoes does the same for car seats, prescription drugs, medical devices, or any number of critical products. It is fair for all manufacturers to be held responsible for conducting truthful marketing campaigns. You can find the Massachusetts ' court's opinion in Bezdek v. Vibram USA here.