Farese v. Connolly

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Farese v. Connolly

422 Mass. 1010

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 9, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 422 Mass. 1010 (Farese v. Connolly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farese v. Connolly, 422 Mass. 1010 (Mass. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Section 60B of G. L. c. 231 provides that, after a panel’s finding for a defendant physician, “the plaintiff may pursue the claim through the usual judicial process only upon filing bond” and “[i]f said bond is not posted within thirty days of the tribunal’s finding the action shall be dismissed.” The provision that the claim may be preserved judicially only if a bond is filed indicates a legislative intent that the claim may not otherwise be pursued. The purpose of the medical malpractice tribunal statute would be undercut if a plaintiff were to be allowed to start all over again. See McMahon v. Glixman, 379 Mass. 60, 64 (1979) (plaintiff who fails to file bond “runs the risk of being out of court entirely” in taking pretrial appeal from tribunal finding).

The judgment is vacated, and judgment shall be entered dismissing the action with prejudice.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Section 60B of G. L. c. 231 provides that, after a panel’s finding for a defendant physician, “the plaintiff may pursue the claim through the usual judicial process only upon filing bond” and “[i]f said bond is not posted within thirty days of the tribunal’s finding the action shall be dismissed.” The provision that the claim may be preserved judicially only if a bond is filed indicates a legislative intent that the claim may not otherwise be pursued. The purpose of the medical malpractice tribunal statute would be undercut if a plaintiff were to be allowed to start all over again. See McMahon v. Glixman, 379 Mass. 60, 64 (1979) (plaintiff who fails to file bond “runs the risk of being out of court entirely” in taking pretrial appeal from tribunal finding).

The judgment is vacated, and judgment shall be entered dismissing the action with prejudice.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 Mass. 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farese-v-connolly-mass-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack