Congratulations to Attorney John Puleo who successfully represented two physicians in a case that went before the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on Further Appellate Review. The case was brought against several healthcare providers, the hospital, and a corporate affiliate, arising out of medical complications following a delayed appendectomy. As required by statute, plaintiff filed an offer of proof which contained no medical records, and an expert letter which did not name any defendant or state their role in the care and treatment. Plaintiff moved several times to impound her medical records before submitting them to the medical malpractice tribunal, and then for a protective order to restrict access to her medical records, both of which were denied by the trial court. Plaintiff lost at the tribunal, failed to post the bond, and the case was dismissed. Plaintiff appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed both the order granting dismissal and the denial of her motion for impoundment. On Further Appellate Review, the SJC (Gaziano, J.) held that to be entitled to impoundment, plaintiff had to allege some particularized basis under the Uniform Rules of Impoundment, and that the plaintiff’s offer of proof was insufficient, affirming the order denying the motion to impound and the judgment of dismissal.
