Massachusetts

Statute of

 Limitations

 Medical Claim Generally:

“Actions of contract or tort for malpractice, error or mistake against physicians, surgeons, dentists, optometrists, hospitals and sanitoria shall be commenced only within three years after the cause of action accrues, but in no event shall any such action be commenced more than seven years after occurrence of the act or omission which is the alleged cause of the injury upon which such action is based except where the action is based upon the leaving of a foreign object in the body.” [Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 260 §4] However, Massachusetts does apply the discovery rule as noted in Franklin v. Albert (1980).

 Minors:

“A minor under the full age of six years shall have until his ninth birthday in which the action may be commenced, but in no event shall any such action be commenced more than seven years after occurrence of the act or omission which is the alleged cause of the injury upon which such action is based except where the action is based upon the leaving of a foreign object in the body.” [Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231 §60]

 Wrongful death:

A wrongful death claim must be brought 3 years from the date of death

 Damage Caps

Massachusetts has a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages except where “there is a substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function or substantial disfigurement, or other special circumstances in the case which warrant a finding that imposition of such a limitation would deprive the plaintiff of just compensation for the injuries sustained.” [Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231, §60H

Attorney 

Fee Caps

Massachusetts limits contingency fees in medical malpractice cases based on percentages depending on the amount recovered. [Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231, §60h and 60l]

 Pre-suit   Requirements

When filing a medical malpractice claim, Massachusetts requires notice of intent to file a claim. [Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231, §60L(a)]

 Expert  

 Qualifications

Massachusetts gives discretion to the trial court to determine if an expert is qualified and the expert must have “sufficient ‘education, training, experience and familiarity’ with the subject matter of the testimony.” There isn’t a same specialty or practice area requirement. [Letch v. Daniels (1987)]

 Negligent Credentialing   Claims

The Massachusetts Appellate Court appeared to impliedly recognize a negligent credentialing cause of action, but no case has definitively established one yet. Massachusetts seems to be moving in the direction of creating this cause of action. [Copithorne v. Framingham Union Hospital (1988)]