Polanco v. Sandor

5 Citing cases

  1. Marengi v. 6 Forest Rd. LLC

    491 Mass. 19 (Mass. 2022)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Construing bond provision, which prohibits award of costs "unless" court determines appellant "acted in bad faith or with malice" in bringing appeal, to require showing that appeal "appears to be so devoid of merit as to allow the reasonable inference of bad faith or malice"

    See College Hill Props., LLC, 465 Mass. at 139, 987 N.E.2d 1236. Cf. Polanco v. Sandor, 480 Mass. 1010, 1012, 103 N.E.3d 747 (2018) ("[A] principal purpose of [the bond provision in medical malpractice appeals] is to deter plaintiffs from going forward with unmeritorious claims....

  2. Marengi v. 6 Forest Rd. LLC

    No. SJC-13316 (Mass. Dec. 14, 2022)

    ; because taxable costs are typically small, a correspondingly small bond would not provide any significant deterrent to meritless claims. See College Hill Props., LLC, 465 Mass. at 139. Cf. Polanco v. Sandor, 480 Mass. 1010, 1012 (2018) ("[A] principal purpose of [the bond provision in medical malpractice appeals] is to deter plaintiffs from going forward with unmeritorious claims. . . . Allowing a plaintiff to proceed on [a nominal bond amount] effectively ignores the deterrence intent of the statute").

  3. Colon1 v. Lozano

    No. 20-P-1221 (Mass. App. Ct. Jul. 26, 2021)

    G. L. c. 231, § 60B. See Polanco v. Sandor, 480 Mass. 1010, 1010-1011 (2018); Ruggiero, 73 Mass.App.Ct. at 745-746. Thus, whatever mechanism exists for a case to be returned to the tribunal upon discovery of new evidence -- an issue that has not been briefed by either party -- the judge could not simply bypass the tribunal and reinstate the claims against Dr. Lozano, as requested by the plaintiff.

  4. Colon v. Lozano

    100 Mass. App. Ct. 1103 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021)

    G. L. c. 231, § 60B. See Polanco v. Sandor, 480 Mass. 1010, 1010-1011 (2018) ; Ruggiero, 73 Mass. App. Ct. at 745-746. Thus, whatever mechanism exists for a case to be returned to the tribunal upon discovery of new evidence -- an issue that has not been briefed by either party -- the judge could not simply bypass the tribunal and reinstate the claims against Dr. Lozano, as requested by the plaintiff.

  5. Zaleskas v. Brigham & Women's Hosp.

    97 Mass. App. Ct. 55 (Mass. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 13 times
    Finding triable issue as to extreme and outrageous conduct where there was evidence that X-ray technician knew patient was in great pain, but did not allow family into examination room, refused to stop examination despite patient's screams, returned patient to a soiled bed, and lied about what had happened

    At the tribunal hearing, the tribunal determines whether the plaintiff's offer of proof "if properly substantiated is sufficient to raise a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry or whether the plaintiff's case is merely an unfortunate medical result." G. L. c. 231, § 60B. See Polanco v. Sandor, 480 Mass. 1010, 1010, 103 N.E.3d 747 (2018). "[A] person, corporation, facility or institution licensed by the commonwealth to provide health care or professional services as a physician, hospital, clinic or nursing home, dentist, registered or licensed nurse, optometrist, podiatrist, chiropractor, physical therapist, psychologist, social worker, or acupuncturist, or an officer, employee or agent thereof acting in the course and scope of his employment."