 |
 |
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
ore, even taken together, the letters fail to precisely identify the legal basis for the claim and are thus inadequate to fulfil the statutory purpose of the presentment requirement. Contrast Martin v. Commonwealth, 53 Mass. App. Ct. at 532 (concluding that "the letter, which specifically identified a legal basis . . . put the executive officer on notice of the time, place, and factual basis of the claims sufficiently to allow the opportunity to investigate, evaluate, settle, and avoid further liability"); Rodriguez v. Cambridge Hous. Authy., 59 Mass. App. Ct. at 136.
Policy Issues
Citing the cases of Lopez and Carifio, supra, Garcia argues that ECSD should be equitably estopped from contesting the sufficiency of presentment because the ECSD attorney lulled him into believing presentment was not at issue by stating in his letters that he would investigate and subsequently making an offer of settlement for the claimed medical expenses. However, this is not a case of form over substance. As already noted, supra, the facially deficient presentments in Lopez and Carifio were excused because the record revealed unique factual circumstances showing that the executive officers had actually received and considered the written presentment, thus fulfilling the statutory purpose. That is not the case here. To "lull" a plaintiff into believing that presentment is not an issue, the defendant must affirmatively indicate that the presentment requirement has been met or is waived. See Vasys v. Metropolitan Dist. Commn., 387 Mass. 51, 53 (1982); Holahan v. Medford, 394 Mass. at 191; Moran v. Mashpee, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 679, 681 (1984). The evidence does not support such a conclusion, especially considering that Garcia had plenty of time to correct his presentment because the defendant's answer placed him on notice of his claim's deficiency before the time for presentment had run out. Contrast Vasys v. Metropolitan Dist. Commn., supra.
Judgment affirmed.
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.
|
|