Blog

Welcome

Coming Soon

Please check back soon for more details on Blog. In the meantime, please contact us for more details.

Nursing Home Negligence

Attorneys For Nursing Home Abuse

Helping The Most Helpless Since 1995

As personal injury attorneys, we are aware of the skepticism that many people hold toward injury lawyers. Happily, this skepticism rarely manifests in cases involving handling nursing home negligence and abuse.

We believe this is the case because injured nursing home residents and their families clearly need the caring assistance of an experienced lawyer. Elderly people’s injuries are real and apparent, and it is important that those responsible for nursing home residents’ injuries be held accountable for negligence and carelessness.

If you need legal help regarding injuries sustained in a nursing home or other care facility, contact Colucci Colucci Marcus & Flavin, PC.

Don’t Accept Substandard Care In A Nursing Home

Our Boston nursing home abuse lawyers have handled many dozens of nursing home injury and wrongful death cases. Some of these cases involve situations where a resident has suffered abuse that could be sexual, physical or emotional in nature. Neglect — whether because of inadequate staffing or another reason — is another form of abuse that could result in a person not receiving proper food and water. Residents can suffer physical harm if they’re not rotated in bed regularly, making them susceptible to bedsores or pressure ulcers. Residents who are not properly supervised sometimes wander off, or fall and break a bone. These types of negligence cases don’t only occur in nursing home settings; they can also happen in an assisted living facility, or in situations where a person needs a home health aide. Sometimes doctors even fail to properly diagnose patients, or fail to treat them once they are diagnosed. Even with a correct diagnosis, errors in prescribing or administering medications can cause serious harm. Our firm understands the betrayal that occurs when your loved one has been harmed by the very people entrusted with his/her care. We hold the responsible parties accountable for their actions and aggressively seek justice for your loved one.

We Value Every Human Life

Often, an adult child of an injured nursing home resident walks through our door following a frustrating meeting with another law firm, where he/she was told his/her case was denied because his/her parent was “too old.”

While it is true that age can lessen the value of a claim, we believe that every life has value and that every family deserves caring and committed legal help.

We have accepted nursing home negligence cases involving injured 90-year-olds after numerous other firms turned down the case. To us, it feels good to fulfill our goal of providing compensation for all injured parties, especially those least able to care for and fight for themselves.

Contact Massachusetts Nursing Home Negligence Attorneys

We work on a contingency fee basis in all areas related to personal injury law. This means that you pay nothing if we don’t win compensation for you and that all attorney time is at no charge, including your initial consultation.

We are available for day, evening and weekend appointments. We can visit you in your home or in the hospital and are conveniently located six miles from the South Station Tunnel right off the Expressway near Route 128. To contact the Boston and Cambridge elder abuse law firm of Colucci Colucci Marcus & Flavin, PC. Get a free consultation today! 

Ryan T. Allen

  • Graduated law school and admitted to the MA Bar in 2016
  • Joined Colucci, Colucci, Marcus & Flavin, P.C. as a law clerk in June 2014
  • Born and Raised in Massachusetts
  • Has dedicated entire practice to plaintiff’s personal injury
  • Reached settlements in cases involving motorcycle accidents, slip and falls, trip and falls, work site accidents, bicycle accidents, daycare accidents, motor vehicle accidents, motor vehicle v. pedestrian accidents, dog bites, negligent security, and premises liability.

Litigation Percentage

  • 100% of Practice Devoted to Litigation

Bar Admissions

  • Massachusetts, 2016

Education

  • Boston University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts
    J.D. – 2016
  • University of Massachusetts at Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts
    B.A. Major: Political Science – 2013

Areas of Practice

Product Liability Case

When the minor plaintiff, a two year old girl, developed symptoms of ordinary congestion, her parents took her to her primary care doctor who recommended the use of a warm steam vaporizer. The parents purchased the defendant’s vaporizer which contained warnings to keep the apparatus away from children. Notwithstanding this fact, the parents placed the vaporizer on the child’s floor at bedtime. The unit was equipped with a glowing orange light that, the defendant advertised, promoted “safety.” The child unexpectedly woke in the middle of the night to notice a glowing orange orb on her floor. When she approached closely to investigate, the steam scalded her face. She was left with a visible and permanent scar under her eye.

The plaintiff’s expert tested the unit and opined that it emitted an exceedingly hot plume of steam which can disfigure upon only “momentary contact.” The expert also noted that the steam exhausted by the vaporizer should not have exceeded 160 degrees Fahrenheit. The unit should also have been equipped with a longer and/or baffled steam path to the steam outlet of the vaporizer and/or provided a protective steam guard around the steam plume which would physically prevent contact with the high temperature portions of the steam plume. The defendants asserted that, if used properly, the unit was in fact safe and that the parents’ conduct prevented the plaintiff from proving proximate cause.

The case endured a failed mediation which yielded a “final offer” of only $125,000. It ultimately settled with the assistance of a new mediator.

Professional Malpractice

Plaintiff’s counsel achieved a verdict in a professional malpractice case totaling $894,000, (exclusive of interest and attorney fees), which was comprised of a modest award for negligence and a much larger award for a “willing and knowing” violation of c. 93A.

The defendant’s insurance company had assigned counsel but defended their insured in the underlying litigation under a reservation of rights.  The insurer ultimately refused to indemnify their insured yet insisted on filing an appeal of the verdict despite their insured’s objection. The appeal failed at both the state appellate court and the SJC thereby creating an even larger accruing personal liability for the insured.

The insured assigned to plaintiff’s counsel its rights against its insurer. Eventually, the insurer filed a declaratory judgment action in the Federal District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to indemnify its insured. The insured filed a counterclaim including allegations that the insurer failed to settle a claim where liability was reasonably clear.

Discovery revealed numerous communications between the insurer and their assigned counsel in the underlying Superior Court litigation. Because they were optimistic of success at trial, the insurer and assigned defense counsel rejected numerous settlement demands. The insured argued that his defense counsel had in fact urged the insurer not to settle. Despite the confidence of the insurer and defense counsel, the jury returned a verdict against the insured thereby causing him to incur personal liability.

By way of assignment, the insured eventually instituted a case against his underlying counsel and his insurer alleging that the underlying case should have been settled. In defense, his former lawyer suggested that a “tripartite” relationship existed and that he never violated his obligations to his client, the insured.

A global settlement was reached at mediation in sum of $1,150,000 which included contributions from both the defense counsel’s insurer as well as the original insured’s malpractice insurer.