MUNICIPALITIES
Upton & Hatfield, LLP Attorney Justin C. Richardson achieved a judgment from the Strafford County Superior Court for one of the firm’s municipal clients. The Court’s decision ordered the closure of an unlicensed junk yard within 90 days, imposed a suspended penalty of $325,050, and awarded $18,000 in attorney’s fees, for violations of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and RSA 236.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Our client reported for a pre-deployment physical arranged for the military by a private contractor. As part of the physical, a blood sample was obtained for various tests, including his prostate specific antigens (PSA). The PSA result was elevated, especially for a 44 year old man. The result was not relayed to the reservist, but was reported to the contractor as abnormal. The reservist was cleared for deployment and completed a tour in Iraq. In 2008, after he returned from Iraq, he underwent a physical exam that revealed an abnormal prostate. He underwent a prostate biopsy that showed aggressive prostate cancer. He then underwent a radical prostatectomy, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and hormone therapy. Post treatment, the serviceman had a detectable PSA, indicating the cancer was not completely removed. Prognosis was vigorously disputed by both sides. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Our client presented to the hospital in active labor of a full term pregnancy. This was her second uncomplicated pregnancy. Initially, the labor progressed normally. After several hours of labor, the physician started pitocin to augment contractions. Approximately twenty minutes after the start of pitocin, the fetal heart monitor showed signs of distress. In response, the pitocin was stopped for twenty minutes to allow the baby to recover. The physician ordered the pitocin to be restarted, and incrementally increased the dose. The fetal monitor continued to show signs of distress. Over the next hour and a half, the baby deteriorated, requiring an emergency Caesarian section. The baby was delivered lifeless, without a heart beat or respirations. The case was settled for a confidential amount.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Plaintiffs’ decedent, a 78 year old woman, entered the hospital for a routine, cardiac-related procedure. During her admission, the defendant’s nurse and nurse practitioner allegedly mismanaged her repeated episodes of hypoglycemia in a manner that violated the standard of care, caused her injury and resulted in her death. The defendant’s nurse administered repeated doses of D50, a very viscous, dextrose medication, through a small vein on the back of her hand. The manner in which the nurse repeatedly administered the medication allegedly caused an extravasation which led to tissue death of the fingers and hand. Following surgical amputations of a substantial portion of decedent’s hand, she contracted a systemic MRSA infection and died. Plaintiffs claimed that the mismanagement of hypoglycemia, by repeatedly administering D50 rather than getting to the root cause for the low blood sugars, led to the extravasation of the drug which led to tissue death and amputations of her hand. The amputation wounds allowed a MRSA infection to enter the blood stream and caused a systemic infection which resulted in her wrongful death. Plaintiffs’ endocrinologist testified that the manner in which the hospital treated the repeated, hypoglycemic episodes fell below the standard of care. Plaintiffs’ expert vascular surgeon testified that the repeated doses of D50 caused extravasation that led to necrosis of the hand. Plaintiffs’ infectious disease expert testified that the likely portal of entry for the MRSA infection was the surgical amputation wounds on her hand and the systemic MRSA infection caused death. Following a 7-day trial, the jury returned a verdict of $983,000 in favor of the Estate of Katherine Coffey and Francis Coffey, Individually. Aumand, Executrix of the Estate of Katherine Coffey & a. v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, United States District Court, District of New Hampshire, No. 1:06-cv-434.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Our client, a 6-year old girl, presented to her family care doctor approximately 15 times in 2 ½ years with complaints of ear infections. A hearing test revealed hearing loss in the ear that was not infected. The infections were treated repeatedly with antibiotics, but failed to resolve. Ultimately, our client was diagnosed with a cholesteatoma that had destroyed the ossicular chain, required extensive reconstruction, and caused permanent hearing loss. The doctor claimed that the ear infections were treated properly and he had no reason to suspect a cholesteatoma.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Our client was admitted to a local hospital in active labor. The second stage of labor was prolonged with meconium staining of the amniotic fluid and fetal monitors showing fetal distress. Rather than performing a cesarean section, her physician administered Pitocin and made a number of attempts at vacuum extraction of the baby. The baby was eventually delivered in a very depressed condition with a subdural hematoma and skull fracture. Shortly thereafter, the child developed seizures and was ultimately diagnosed with monoplegia. The case settled on the eve of trial for a confidential amount.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Our client had an unplanned pregnancy. Because of a previous delivery of a child born with a congenital abnormality, our client was very concerned about the possibility of delivering a child with birth defects. Her physician performed a vaginal ultrasound at 13 ½ weeks gestation and informed our client that the baby was healthy. The physician failed to perform a mid-trimester abdominal ultrasound at 18 to 20 weeks to do a complete fetal survey. The baby was born with severe facial and brain abnormalities. We took the position that if a fetal survey had been performed, it would have revealed the fetal anomalies. Medical expenses exceeded $1 million, future medical expenses were estimated at $2.1 million and our client suffered lost earnings in excess of $600,000. The case was settled one week before trial for a confidential amount.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
A doctor biopsied a suspicious mole on our client. Two weeks later, a staff person removed the sutures and told our client that she was “all set.” Four years later, the mole started to bleed and our client was diagnosed with melanoma. A review of her chart revealed that the pathology lab had mailed a report to the doctor on the same day that the sutures had been removed, indicating that the tissue contained atypical cells (pre-cancerous). The doctor’s office never reported the results to our client. The case settled on the eve of trial for a confidential amount.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
In the course of delivering our client’s first child, the doctor failed to control the delivery of the infant’s head after performing an episiotomy, resulting in our client suffering a fourth-degree perineal tear into her sphincter. The case settled for a confidential amount after the jury deadlocked.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Our client had a pap smear reported to be abnormal. Acting on the recommendation of her physician, our client had a follow-up pap smear six months later. This pap smear was reported as Class 1, not malignant, when in fact it contained abnormal cells and showed acute inflammation. Six months later, another pap smear obtained from our client was reported as scanty atypia, but still normal. This pap smear again showed abnormal cells and acute inflammation. The following year our client had another pap smear, and it was described as showing mild inflammation within normal limits. Two years later, our client had a pap smear reported as abnormal. Follow-up medical treatment revealed that the plaintiff had cervical carcinoma in situ. She underwent an abdominal hysterectomy and suffered emotional damage and physical pain. The case settled after suit but before trial for a confidential amount.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Our client sought treatment from a nurse practitioner at her local health center for an uncomfortable lump recently found in her left breast. The nurse practitioner diagnosed the problem as fibroglandular thickening. Bilateral mammograms were described by the interpreting radiologist as “relatively negative,” but he noted that the findings should not deter a biopsy or close clinical follow-up of a suspicious lesion. At a follow-up examination five months later, again noting the suspicious lump, the nurse practitioner recommended that our client follow up in one year, but failed to recommend a biopsy. A new doctor performed the client’s next annual examination, and described the mass as a 3 x 4 centimeter lesion. Our client was scheduled for a biopsy. The biopsy revealed that she was suffering from Grade III infiltrating ductal carcinoma. She subsequently underwent a left modified radical mastectomy. Fourteen of her nineteen nodes were positive for metastatic disease. She ultimately underwent a stem cell transplant, five courses of chemotherapy and radiation. The cancer has since metastasized to her lungs. Our client’s cancer remains in remission at this time, but the prognosis is that she will likely succumb to her disease. The case settled after suit but before trial for a confidential amount.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
While at work on the late shift, our client suffered sudden and severe bilateral leg pain. He had a long history of back problems, including several surgeries. He was taken to the hospital and saw a doctor in the emergency room. The doctor noted his bilateral leg pain and loss of feeling circumferentially in both legs, but failed to perform a thorough physical exam or seek appropriate consults with specialists. The client’s previous back doctor also saw our client within an hour of arrival at the hospital, but failed to timely diagnose and treat what was later identified as superficial femoral artery occlusion. The doctor waited too long to request appropriate consults, failed to perform a focused physical exam, and failed to impress upon the consulting doctors the urgency of the situation. As a result, our client’s condition went untreated for 36 to 40 hours, by which time thrombectomy, bypass surgery and other potential treatments were no longer an option. He underwent an above-the-knee leg amputation five days after admission. The case was settled at mediation for a confidential amount.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
We represented two four-year-old girls who attended a day care center where a teacher contracted meningitis. The children in the teacher’s homeroom were treated with antibiotics prophylactically, but children who were not in the homeroom (including our clients) were not advised to have treatment. Our clients developed symptoms of meningitis and were seen by a pediatrician. The pediatrician diagnosed viral infections and sent them home. Both children became seriously ill with meningitis and required lengthy hospitalization. Suit was filed against the day care center, the State of New Hampshire and the pediatrician. The case was settled at mediation for a confidential amount.
Return to top of page
PERSONAL INJURY
A 6 year old girl visiting in the home of a family acquaintance was violently bitten about her face by a mixed-breed dog. We brought suit, on behalf of the mother and next friend of the young girl on strict liability, violation of New Hampshire R.S.A. 466:19. The defense claimed that the minor plaintiff was engaged in the commission of a trespass or other tort at the time of her injury because she was provoking the defendants’ dog. The insurance company also claimed that the 6 year old child had the capacity to be negligent and that her conduct should be measured against the conduct of other six year olds. The child was severely bitten on her face, lips and mouth by the defendant’s dog. The bite lacerations were deep and ragged; intra-operative photographs were graphic. There is permanent scarring and facial asymmetry that will require revision surgery once the child and scars mature. The case was settled after suit, but prior to protracted litigation, for the full amount of the defendants’ homeowners insurance policy limits.
PERSONAL INJURY
Our clients, a 53 year old gentleman, and his wife, rear-ended on interstate on-ramp in the City limits. Low velocity collision. Wife sustained injury to cervical neck and spine requiring diagnostic testing to insure stability of preexisting C5-6 fusion. Husband suffered injury to cervical spine which was the subject of spinal fusion surgery nearly 20 years prior. Moreover, husband suffered a traumatic injury to his lumbar spine which likely destabilized his lumbar spine necessitating L5/S1 spinal fusion with instrumentation. Plaintiff’s surgeon was of the opinion that a preexisting spondylolisthesis and pars defect was a benign condition that had likely existed for decades and, but for the trauma caused by the impact from the motor vehicle collision, would likely have never required stabilization surgery. Plaintiffs claimed combined damages in the approximate amount of $137,600.00. Case was settled after suit but prior to trial for a confidential amount, a portion of which was allocated to a structured annuity.
PERSONAL INJURY
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, were traveling I-93 North in the City of Manchester, New Hampshire, when the defendant lost control of his pickup truck, towing a utility trailer carrying a 750 pound motorcycle. The motorcycle had been tied to the trailer in an upright fashion secured only by tie-downs at the front and rear of the motorcycle. The utility trailer was not specifically designed for motorcycle transit and was not equipped with chocks, blocks or wells in which to secure the wheels of the motorcycle. The defense claimed that the collision was an “act of God” due to gusts of wind and generally denied any liability for the collision. Plaintiffs claimed that the motorcycle shifted on the utility trailer causing a shift in dynamics of the trailer, thus resulting in a jackknife of the trailer with the pickup or tow vehicle. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant’s use of an improper trailer, along with his inexperience in towing, was the legal cause for the motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff (husband) suffered a significant shoulder injury that cannot be surgically repaired. His orthopaedic surgeon has predicted the need for a total shoulder joint replacement surgery as a result of the traumatic injuries. Plaintiff (wife) suffered a shoulder contusion and ongoing stressors from the psychological trauma she experienced in the crash. The case was settled after suit but prior to trial for the total of the Defendant’s liability insurance policy.
PERSONAL INJURY
Our client was injured when she slipped and fell on an icy parking lot at her place of employment. Suit was filed against the contractor responsible for maintenance of the parking lot and was settled for the full amount of his insurance coverage.
PERSONAL INJURY
Our client was the operator of a motorcycle traveling in an eastbound direction on an unmarked paved road. The defendant was the operator of a pickup truck traveling in the opposite direction. At the crest of a grade in the roadway, the two vehicles collided. Our client survived, but was seriously injured and had medical bills in excess of $250,000. The case was settled for an amount just below the full amount of the available insurance coverage of $1 million.
PERSONAL INJURY
We represented the estate of a 15-year old girl who was killed while crossing the street on a rural highway in the western part of the state. We claimed that the defendant was operating at an excessive speed and failed to maintain a proper lookout. The defendant claimed that our client was wearing dark clothing and that he was operating his vehicle within the speed limit. The case was settled for a confidential amount one month prior to trial.
PERSONAL INJURY
Our client was killed while riding a motorcycle through an intersection when a vehicle coming from the opposite direction turned left immediately into his path. The defendant claimed that our client had been operating the motorcycle at an excessive rate of speed. Examination of the motorcycle following the collision revealed that a defective throttle mechanism had caused the accelerator to lock in the full throttle position. The case was settled against the other driver and the manufacturer of the motorcycle for a confidential amount after depositions were taken of the accident reconstruction experts.
PERSONAL INJURY
Our client’s decedent was walking across a rural highway when she was struck by a vehicle. No crosswalk was available. The case settled after suit but before trial for a confidential amount.
PERSONAL INJURY
Our client was operating a motorcycle traveling eastbound on an unmarked paved road. A pickup truck traveling westbound on the same road collided with our client at the crest of a grade in the roadway. The case settled after suit but before trial for a confidential amount.
PERSONAL INJURY
As our client was slowing to make a left turn, another vehicle rear-ended her. The case settled after suit but before trial for a confidential amount.
PERSONAL INJURY
Our client was walking within a crosswalk when she was struck by a motor vehicle. The case settled prior to trial for a confidential amount.
PERSONAL INJURY
Our client was riding a jet ski on Lake Sunapee. A power boat was following too closely and at an excessive speed behind the jet ski. When the jet ski turned, the boat hit the jet ski, killing the jet ski operator. Alcohol was present in the blood of the power boat operator. The client claimed vicarious liability and negligent entrustment against the owner of the boat and the owner of the marina possessing the boat for repair. The owner of the boat was a friend of the boat owner and the stepson of the marina owner. Our client’s decedent was survived by his elderly mother in Iran. The case settled on the eve of trial for a confidential amount.
AGE DISCRIMINATION
Our client was the Director of Admissions at a private school. Her contract was not renewed after a young man was hired to replace her. The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire ruled in our client’s favor in denying the school’s motion for summary judgment. The Court found that our client had raised a genuine issue of fact concerning whether the school’s decision to terminate her due to a claimed personality conflict was actually based upon age discrimination. The case settled at mediation for a confidential amount.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Our client was sexually harassed while she worked as a professional development coordinator at a college. The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire ruled in our client’s favor in allowing us to amend the Complaint to add a claim under Title IX (20 U.S.C. §1681) in addition to the claims under Title VII and New Hampshire common law. The case settled at mediation for a confidential amount.
DEFENSE OF CLAIM OF PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION
Our client was an insurance agency accused of discriminating against a pregnant employee. The case was heard by the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights. A decision was rendered in our client’s favor.
ENERGY & UTILITIES
Public Utilities Commission Affirms Decision Allowing Nashua to Acquire Pennichuck Water Works
March 13, 2009
The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission affirmed a decision today allowing the City of Nashua to acquire the assets of Pennichuck Water Works, Inc., an investor-owned water utility serving 25,000 customers in Southern New Hampshire. Upton & Hatfield attorneys Robert Upton, II and Justin Richardson, part of the firms municipal and utility practice groups, represented Nashua before the Public Utilities Commission.
The case commenced on March 25, 2004, following a vote by the City to acquire the company pursuant to RSA 38. Pennichuck Water Works is the largest of three water utilities owned by Pennichuck Corporation (NASDAQ: PNNW), which also owns Pennichuck East Utilities, Inc. (PEU) and Pittsfield Aqueduct Company (PAC).
Today’s decision brings proceedings before the Public Utilities Commission to a close pending appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. In a March 19, 2009 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Pennichuck Corporation indicated that it intends to appeal the decision.
