Category Archives: Personal Injury

This will be the concluding blog in the series of discussions about the recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, Fyffe v. MBTA. There are a few more points worth considering. First, I have discussed the concept of speculation by a medical expert or an attorney in past blogs and the Appeals Court in Fyffe discusses the subject at some length. Specifically, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s attorney attempt to bring up the issue of quadriplegia because there was no record of evidence to support such speculation. There had been no suggestion of this issue in the pretrial documents.

This will be the third blog in our series of discussions on the recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision of Fyffe v. MBTA. We continue our analysis of the lessons that can be learned from this case, one certain to be cited by defense lawyers. While the majority of cases do not go to trial, the way that a trial would unfold and the anticipated evidence that would be presented at such a trial influences to a very large extent the amount of recovery that might be sought from a pre-trial settlement.

This will be the second blog in a series of discussions on the recent case Fyffe v. MBTA, which was decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court on October 6, 2014. There are several lessons to be learned from this case in the context of personal injury litigation. First, the Appeals Court pointed out that it was inappropriate for the plaintiff’s attorney to inform the jurors of the extensive media coverage that this case was receiving.

In our video blog we discuss the very recent recent decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Fyffe v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 457 (2014), a case that seems to be viewed by many plaintiffs attorneys as unsettling. I, on the other hand, find that the case merely sets out what must be established to prove a case. To be sure, it also sets out what must not be done.

Prior to law school, I doubt that I had ever heard of the term causality, at least not in a legal context. However, the term’s basic meaning—something that brings about a result or occurrence—is not too different from what the word means to a lawyer. In a legal context, the term causality generally refers to the relationship between the allegedly negligent act and the resulting injury.

Based on my experience representing clients with scarring, I ask clients to keep in mind two “Ps”: Pictures and Prognostication.Pictures at the time the scar was sustained and pictures of the scarring after some time has passed are very important for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, this means that the client will need to have taken pictures of the scarring within days of the accident. Pictures taken immediately, when the injury is in its “acute” stage are often graphic and should be in the plaintiff lawyer’s arsenal for effective representation.

In representing clients I am charged with making their injuries understood by third parties, whether it be opposing counsel, insurance companies, mediators, judges or juries. Although medical records and evaluations by physicians will be used to determine the client’s damages, the best representation of the client’s injuries to a third party is often demonstrative evidence– pictures. And as the old saying goes, “pictures are worth a thousand words.”