 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garcia v. Essex County Sheriff's Dep't11/10/2005
Essex.
September 14, 2005.
Present: Armstrong, C.J., Rapoza, & Doerfer, JJ.
Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. Practice, Civil, Presentment of claim under Massachusetts Tort Claims Act.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 25, 2003.
A motion to dismiss was heard by Howard J. Whitehead, J., and entry of summary judgment was ordered by him.
At issue in this appeal is the frequently litigated location of the boundary between a sufficient and an insufficient presentment of a claim under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA), G. L. c. 258, § 4. We conclude, as did the motion judge in the Superior Court, that presentment was insufficient and that the action was properly dismissed.
Facts
On February 1, 2002, Manuel Garcia (Garcia) was injured in a motor vehicle accident while in the custody of the Essex County sheriff's department (ECSD) as he was being transported in a prisoner van that slid off the road in bad weather.
During the following months, Garcia's counsel sent three letters to ECSD; each letter was specifically addressed to the attention of Rose Desmond, who was the chief fiscal officer for ECSD. In the first letter, dated March 11, 2002, Garcia's counsel informed ECSD that Garcia had suffered injuries as a result of the automobile accident. Garcia's counsel inquired "of the procedure for payment of medical bills." The second letter, sent on July 9, 2002, enclosed Garcia's "complete medical treatment reports and expenses." This letter requests that, " nce you have had an opportunity to review your file, kindly contact [counsel's office] to discuss possible settlement of this claim." On July 19, 2002, Garcia's counsel sent a third letter putting forward a settlement demand of $23,400.
In a letter dated September 10, 2002, written on ECSD letterhead and signed by an ECSD lawyer, ECSD offered a reply to Garcia's settlement demand, indicating in pertinent part:
"I am presently in the process of investigating this matter and reviewing the file previously forwarded to Ms. Desmond by [Garcia's counsel] regarding the alleged incident and your client's alleged injuries. Once I have had the opportunity to fully investigate this matter and review this claim documentation, I will get back to you with a response to your demand."
A follow-up correspondence dated November 15, 2002 (signed by the same ECSD attorney on ECSD letterhead), informed Garcia that ECSD would be "willing to pay" his medical bills, "which total $4,546," in exchange for a "comprehensive release" from him. The ECSD lawyer who signed the letter stated therein: "I have investigated this matter and reviewed the medical documentation which you previously forwarded to the Department."
Settlement negotiations went no further. On August 25, 2003, Garcia commenced an action against ECSD in Superior Court, seeking damages for his injuries. In filing its answer, dated September 26, 2003, ECSD denied any negligence on its part and asserted various affirmative defenses, including that Garcia's claim was barred by his failure to make adequate presentment in accordance with G. L. c. 258, § 4.
In a subsequent motion to dismiss under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 755 (1974), docketed on June 30, 2004, ECSD refined its presentment defense, arguing that presentment was legally inadequate because Garcia did not disclose facts as to the incident, allege any theory of liability, or make known Garcia's intention to prosecute a claim under the MTCA, and did not make presentment of his claim directly to Essex County Sheriff Frank Cousins. A judge al
Page 1 2 3 4 Massachusetts Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|