 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Canavan8/17/2000
able diagnosis is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel: the principle that " party who has successfully maintained a certain position at a trial cannot in a subsequent trial between the same parties be permitted to assume a position relative to the same subject that is directly contrary to that taken at the first trial." Paixao v. Paixao, 429 Mass. 307, 309 (1999), quoting East Cambridge Sav. Bank v. Wheeler, 422 Mass. 621, 623 (1996). The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent the manipulation of the judicial process by litigants. See Blanchette v. School Comm. of Westwood, 427 Mass. 176, 184, (1998).
In a lawsuit separate from this action, the employee and others sued the hospital seeking common-law tort damages because of her affliction with MCS. See Niles-Robinson v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., Inc., Suffolk Superior Court. Civ. A. No. 96-4260-D (Jan. 2, 1997). The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the suit pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), contending that the employee could not maintain a common-law tort action because of the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. A judge in the Superior Court agreed and dismissed the suit. Id. The employee contends that the hospital's argument in its rule 12 (b) (6) motion estops the hospital from now arguing that MCS is not a disease that is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act.
The employee's argument, however, misconstrues the function of a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12 (b) (6). The purpose of a rule 12 (b) (6) motion is to determine whether, under any set of facts, a plaintiff would be entitled to relief. Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 98 (1977). Thus, all factual inferences must be made in favor of the plaintiff. Eyal v. Helen Broadcasting Corp., 411 Mass. 426, 429 (1991). For purposes of its motion to dismiss, the hospital was required to assume that the employee had acquired MCS while at the workplace. By filing a motion to dismiss, the hospital was not admitting that the employee acquired MCS at work; it was only stating that, even if she had acquired MCS at work, she could not maintain an action for common-law tort. The hospital took no position in its rule 12 (b) (6) motion on the nature of the employee's disease or its cause. Thus, no bar prevents the hospital from asserting in this suit that MCS is not a compensable disease under the Workers' Compensation Act.
The employee also maintains that the hospital did not properly preserve its objection to the admission of Dr. LaCava's testimony at the hearing. All the expert physician testimony was taken by deposition pursuant to 452 Code Mass. Regs. Sect. 1.12 (5) (1993). At each point during the deposition prior to Dr. LaCava's offering a conclusion regarding the nature of the employee's condition or the cause of the condition, the hospital's attorney objected to his conclusion as lacking a foundation. The hospital's attorney reiterated these objections in his written closing submission to the judge in which he explicitly referenced the reliability standards established in Commonwealth v. Lanigan, supra at 26. In our view the steps taken by the hospital's attorney, in the context of a workers' compensation hearing, were sufficient to preserve the admissibility of Dr. LaCava's testimony for appellate review.
3. Lanigan analysis
Having determined that the hospital's claim is properly before the court, we turn to whether the judge properly admitted Dr. LaCava's testimony. As workers' compensation proceedings are governed by the rules of evidence applicable in the courts of this Commonwealth, 452 Code Mass. Regs. Sect. 1.11 (5) (1993), our decision must be made pursuant to our rules concerni
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Massachusetts Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|