Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Defining Catastrophic Injury Claims

December 16, 2019 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
How do we define circumstances and injuries that go beyond a typical claim and severely impact a person’s life? How do we characterize the types of claims where an individual’s enjoyment of life is affected in an extraordinary manner? Typically, attorneys refer to these types of cases as “catastrophic injury” claims. These are the type of personal injury claims where the health of an individual has been so seriously impacted that their life has been irreparably altered. Defining these claims legally is somewhat murky and case law has done little to provide attorneys with a specific definition of the term. However, a recent Workers Compensation Appeals Board ruling attempted to list factors in order to establish a catastrophic injury claim. These include:

An intensity and seriousness of treatment received for an injury;
The ultimate outcome when a person’s physical injury is permanent and stationary;
Whether the severity of the physical injury impacts the person’s ability to perform daily activities;
Whether the physical injury is closely analogous to one of the injuries specified in various statutes, including loss of a limb, paralysis, severe burns, or a severe head injury; and
If the physical injury is incurable or progressive. Wilson v. State of California CAL Fire (5/10/19) 2019 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 29.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Check The Boxes Regarding Contractual Conditions Precedent to Payment

August 21, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Remember this: complying with contractual conditions precedent to payment is important. There is a reason why construction contracts include contractual conditions precedent to payment. The contract does not include this language for sh*ts and giggles. This language is included to establish what is required of the payee before payment becomes due. There may be conditions precedent to the payment of progress payments. There may be conditions precedent to the payment of final payment. Payment is not due until the conditions precedent have been satisfied. Do yourself a favor and consider this language in the construction contract, particularly if a dispute arises. If the condition precedent has not or cannot be satisfied, game plan as to the factual reason. The best thing to do is be prepared – check the boxes regarding conditions precedent to ensure you have considered this contractual language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Team Temporarily Stabilizes Delaware River Bridge Crack

February 02, 2017 — Justin Rice - Engineering News-Record
The team temporarily stabilizing the Delaware River Bridge and planning its permanent repair also are trying to find a precedent for the bridge’s uncommon fracture. Connecting the Pennsylvania and New Jersey turnpikes, the 61-year-old symmetrical truss bridge was shut down indefinitely on Jan. 20, when a complete fracture in a steel truss was discovered below the bridge deck. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, ENR
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com

Reaffirming the Importance of Appeal Deadlines Under the Contract Disputes Act

January 26, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) decision emphasizes the importance of deadlines for appealing a contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”). On July 22, 2016, the COFC granted the consolidation of two naval contract dispute appeals totaling nearly $12.4 million in response to Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba’s (“NTS”) motion to resolve two Requests for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) in the same forum. See Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. United States, No. 15-885C, 2016 WL 4009886, at *5 (Fed. Cl. July 22, 2016). NTS’s motion before the COFC sought to transfer an appeal of a REA before the COFC to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), where another appeal of a REA arising under the same contract was presently on appeal. The COFC rejected NTS’s appeal to transfer the REA to the ASBCA because NTS did not appeal the REA within the 90-day limit under the CDA. Instead, the COFC allowed NTS to transfer the REA before the ASBCA to the COFC because timeliness was not an issue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

June 11, 2014 — Earl Forte – White and Williams LLP
On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 12-1200, in which the court confirmed that the power of the nation’s bankruptcy courts to hear and decide cases involving state-created private rights in which the bankruptcy proof of claim process has not been directly invoked, is severely limited by Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The decision in Executive Benefits, while providing some clarity to practitioners and the public following the Court’s June 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), nevertheless will make a substantial portion of bankruptcy litigation matters more cumbersome and potentially more expensive to guide through the bankruptcy system. Clients and practitioners are best advised to hire knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the more complex procedural waters created by this decision. Although the Court in Executive Benefits did resolve a pending procedural question that had dogged practitioners since Stern was decided in 2011, the Court’s decision in Executive Benefits now makes it abundantly clear that many disputes that were previously heard and decided in the nation’s bankruptcy courts can no longer be decided there and must be submitted to the district courts for full de novo review and entry of a final judgment or order. It is difficult to see how this decision will not make bankruptcy litigation more cumbersome and expensive by adding an additional layer of judicial involvement to many matters, notably to fraudulent transfer and other avoidance “claw back” actions that historically have been decided in the bankruptcy courts and used famously in Madoff and other cases as an efficient device for creating value for creditors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Earl Forte, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Forte may be contacted at fortee@whiteandwilliams.com

Mega-Consulate Ties U.S. to Convicted Billionaire in Nigeria

May 30, 2022 — Neil Munshi & William Clowes - Bloomberg
On March 31, billionaire Gilbert Chagoury stood atop the plot of land he’d dredged from the sea around Lagos, beaming in the sweltering heat alongside U.S. Consul-General to Nigeria Claire Pierangelo, as they broke ground for America’s largest consulate in the world. As a cool spring rain fell on Washington that day, Republican Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, of Nebraska, resigned from the House of Representatives after a conviction announced a week earlier. His crime: lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about illegal campaign contributions he’d received from Chagoury. The pageantry in Lagos obscured the uncomfortable fact that by placing its $537 million consulate on Chagoury’s Eko Atlantic development, the U.S. government was becoming the anchor tenant for a project run by a man who was once convicted of laundering money for a Nigerian dictator and who’s admitted to making illegal campaign contributions in the U.S. Ethics groups and Nigeria experts aren’t pleased with the choice. Reprinted courtesy of Neil Munshi, Bloomberg and William Clowes, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Eleventh Circuit Set to Hear Challenge to Florida Law Barring Foreign Citizens From Buying Real Property

April 22, 2024 — Michael Gnesin - Lewis Brisbois
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (April 2, 2024) - This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will hear a challenge to a recently-enacted Florida law, Senate Bill 264, which restricts foreign ownership or investment in Florida real property from specific countries and imposes a near ban on property purchases by Chinese, Russian and other foreign nationals. On July 1, 2023, Senate Bill 264 [codified under Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 692.201 to 692.205] took effect. The bill, titled “Interests of Foreign Countries,” prohibits Chinese nationals and nationals from other countries, including Russia, from buying real property unless they are American citizens or permanent residents. Prior to the new law's effective date, on May 22, 2023, four Chinese citizens who hold nonimmigrant visas and reside in Florida, along with a Florida-based real estate firm, sued the state of Florida in federal district court, alleging that the new law is unconstitutional and discriminatory, and that it violates the Fair Housing Act [Shen v. Simpson, Case No. 4:23-cv-208]. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Gnesin, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Gnesin may be contacted at Michael.Gnesin@lewisbrisbois.com

Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony

October 07, 2019 — Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation Strategist
Seven months ago, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony in Florida state courts. In DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (2018), the court reaffirmed that “Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida.” On May 23, 2019, however, Florida’s high court did an about-face. In In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, the Florida Supreme Court overruled its decision in DeLisle and declared that Florida will now apply the Daubert standard to determine whether scientific evidence is admissible. The Daubert standard comes from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which held that the longstanding Frye test[1] for admitting expert testimony was superseded by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert instructed that federal judges should act as “gatekeepers” to ensure expert testimony is rooted in scientifically valid principles and that those principles are properly applied to the facts at issue. In determining whether scientific evidence should be admitted, Daubert sets forth several factors to consider: the testability of the theory or technique; the peer review and publication of the theory or technique; the error rate for the technique; the standards controlling the technique’s operation; and the general acceptance of the theory or technique.[2] The Daubert standard is generally considered a more onerous test than Frye, precluding expert testimony that might otherwise go to the jury under Frye.[3] Whereas Frye is a single factor test that applies only to new or novel science, Daubert is a multifactor test that applies to all expert testimony. Since Daubert, a growing number of states have moved away from the Frye test in favor of the Daubert standard; it is now followed by a majority of jurisdictions in the country. In 2013, the Florida State legislature attempted to move Florida in this direction by amending the Florida Evidence Code to codify the Daubert standard. But because the Florida Supreme Court is vested with the power to make procedural rules and it was unclear whether the Daubert standard was a procedural or substantive rule, it was uncertain whether the 2013 Daubert amendments were controlling law. Then in 2017, in In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC16-181, the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined adopting the Daubert amendments to the extent they were procedural. This decision signaled that, if faced with the Daubert standard on appeal from a litigated case, the Florida Supreme Court would reaffirm that Frye – not Daubert – controlled the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida state courts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES