LMR's Major PIP Appellate Victories

PART THREE OF A SIX PART WEEKLY SERIES

KANTOROSINSKI CHIROPRACTIC, INC. v. COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY

2012 Mass. App. Div. 231

https://www.masscasesarchive.com/masscases.com/cases/distapp/2012/2012massappdiv231.html

Representing Kantorosinski Chiropractic, Attorney LaMothe successfully identified and challenged critical evidentiary errors that had initially led to a defense verdict, ultimately securing a reversal and a favorable settlement for his client.

Case Overview and Legal Strategy

In this dispute over unpaid Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits, the insurer, Commerce Insurance Company, argued that chiropractic treatment provided to three patients were "unreasonable and excessive" based on the testimony and written reports of Commerce's expert witness.

Attorney LaMothe’s sharp legal strategy focused on the improper bolstering of expert testimony. He argued that the defense had incorrectly used hearsay—specifically "learned treatises" and internal reports—to validate their expert's opinion on direct examination.

Key Successes in the Appeal

Attorney LaMothe’s years of experience and meticulous approach led the Appellate Division to agree with him on several sophisticated evidentiary points:

Challenging Inadmissible Hearsay: Attorney LaMothe successfully argued that it was a prejudicial error for the expert to testify about various studies (like the "Philadelphia Study" and "Official Disability Guidelines") to bolster the expert's opinion during direct examination.

Dismantling "Business Record" Misclassifications: Attorney LaMothe effectively countered the defense's attempt to admit expert record review as "business records." The court agreed with Attorney LaMothe that these reports did not meet the statutory requirements of G.L. c. 233, §78.

Exposing Foundation Failures: Attorney LaMothe highlighted that the expert relied on accident reconstruction and investigation reports that were never introduced into evidence, a point the court found to be a "final infirmity" in the defense's case.

Conclusion

Through his expert command of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, Attorney LaMothe demonstrated the skill required to deconstruct a defense's expert presentation. His ability to prove that the jury was "substantially swayed" by these errors resulted in the original judgment being vacated, providing his client with a hard-won second chance at justice and ultimately a full recovery.