Christopher John Sullivan

Christopher John Sullivan

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Civil Litigation Attorney in Woburn, MA

Sullivan & Associates, LLC
 | 500 Cummings Park West, Suite #4700, Woburn, MA 01801
Phone: 781-939-5840
Fax: 781-935-3027
Selected To Super Lawyers: 2019
Licensed Since: 1986
Practice Areas:
  • Civil Litigation: Defense (80%),
  • Employment Litigation: Defense (10%),
  • General Litigation (10%)

About Christopher Sullivan

Admitted: 1986, Massachusetts

Professional Webpage: sullivanlitigation.com/Page1088.htm

Bar/Professional Activity:

  • Participated as judge in the Massachusetts Bar Association Mock Trial Program in multiple rounds of high school state tourament competitions., 2015
  • Participated in the Essex County Bar Association Mediation/Concilliation Program concilliating and mediating litigation matters in the District Court., 2014

Verdicts/Settlements:

  • Joshua Nesbitt vs. Daemon Gregory and Double C. Fruit, Inc.Worcester Superior CourtBoth parties filed motions for full panel voir dire, which was allowed by the court. The primary issues in voir dire were corporate responsibility, bias against interstate truck drivers and long term medical treatment. This case arose out of an accident involving a commercial tractor trailer tandem and the Plaintiff operating a pickup truck at an intersection in Charlton, MA at approximately 6:00 p.m. the day after Christmas on December 26, 2013. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant truck driver ran through a red light, was reckless and failed to travel at an appropriate speed to stop the truck as it approached the large intersection. The Plaintiff testified that he was stopped at a red light which turned green, causing him to enter the intersection at which time he was struck by the right side of the trailer as the truck driver was switching lanes from the right to the left lane going through the red light. The Defendant testified that while she was operating the tractor trailer, she was coming down a hill and due to the inclement weather conditions (light rain and ice), she was unable to stop as the light had turned from green to yellow. She admitted at the time of trial that it was likely that when the entire tractor trailer tandem went through the intersection that the light had turned to red, but could not stop the vehicle without potentially causing a more serious accident and critically injuring and/or killing somebody if the tractor and trailer had flipped in the event that she had thrown on the brakes to try and stop for the light. She also testified to flashing her lights and using her commercial truck horn to alert individuals at the intersection. An investigation was conducted by the Charlton Police Department, which resulted in no citation being issued to the truck driver. The Defendant at the time of trial attempted to introduce this evidence of non-citation but was precluded by the Plaintiff filing a motion in limine which was allowed by the court, excluding this evidence. The Plaintiff testified prior to the accident that he had been deer hunting most of the day by himself in a tree stand and was driving home at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff further asserted that he suffered significant injuries from the accident, including the following: (1.) Clinical depression/anxiety disorder as a result of the accident; (2.) Traumatic tear of the right shoulder rotator cuff; and (3.) Soft tissue injuries to the neck and back. The Plaintiff had approximately $60,000 in medical bills. Prior to the start of trial, the Plaintiff withdrew the depression/anxiety disorder claim as well as the lost wages claim. The jury deliberated for approximately 5 hours before returning a verdict for the Defendant. 2017.Jose Garcia vs. Brett McRaeEssex Superior CourtBoth parties filed pretrial motions in this case, requesting full panel voir dire which was granted by the court. The primary issues in voir dire were differentiating between liability/causation/damages, pre-existing medical conditions and mitigation of damages. The Defendant stipulated to liability in this case, as he was unavailable for trial. This case arose as a result of a rear-end accident between two motor vehicles in Peabody, MA. The Plaintiff claimed significant injuries as a result of the motor vehicle accident, including the following: (1.) Cervical disc herniation at C5-C6 and C6-C7; (2.) Lumbar disc herniation at L3-L4 and T12-L1; and (3.) Right shoulder internal derangement. The Plaintiff incurred approximately $80,000 in medical bills for treatment from 2012 – 2014. The case focused on the issue of medical causation in which the Plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. Robert Pennell causally linked the motor vehicle accident to an exacerbation of underlying pre-existing conditions, together with new separate independent injuries as noted above. The Defendant’s expert witness Dr. Chaglassian held a contrary opinion, testifying that there was no causal relationship between the disc herniations and the motor vehicle accident, although conceding there was an exacerbation of the underlying soft tissue injuries in both the cervical and lumbar spines for a modest period of disability if Plaintiff’s subjective complaints are to be believed. At the time of trial, there was extensive cross-examination of the Plaintiff regarding his pre-existing medical conditions that preceded the motor vehicle accident by approximately 10 years. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant, finding no causation between the Defendant’s stipulated negligence and the motor vehicle accident, resulting in a Defendant’s verdict. 2017.Rubiela Tabares vs. Mary QuirkBoston Municipal CourtThis case arose out of a pedestrian motor vehicle accident which took place near the Andrews Square MBTA station on Dorchester Avenue, Boston, MA. It was uncontested at the time of the accident that there was a light rain and it was approximately 6:00 p.m. in the winter. The Plaintiff was crossing the street and alleged that the Defendant was negligent in the operation of her vehicle, failing to yield to a pedestrian, failing to keep a proper lookout and driving at an excessive rate of speed. At the time of trial, the Defendant presented evidence that she was changing lanes at the time of the accident not because she was inattentive or failing to keep a proper lookout, but was attempting to avoid the Plaintiff who was crossing the street and kept moving forward directly in front of the Defendant. The Plaintiff was struck by the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, briefly vaulted into the air and down onto the pavement. She suffered injuries to her head, neck and right hip. She was diagnosed with a closed head injury, post-concussion symptoms and soft tissue injuries. The Plaintiff incurred approximately $10,000 in medical bills, and claimed continuing permanent injuries and post-concussion syndrome. The Defendant testified at trial that the Plaintiff was the primary cause of the accident as she was using an umbrella which obscured her view of traffic and crossed directly in the path of the Defendant’s vehicle, leaving her little or no opportunity to avoid the accident. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant, finding no negligence. 2017.Tahir Khan vs. Kathleen MasucciSuffolk Superior CourtThis is a civil motor vehicle negligence case arising out of an accident at the Route 60 rotary (Squire Road), Revere, Massachusetts rotary on October 14, 2011. The Plaintiff was operating his vehicle in the left-hand lane and asserted the Defendant entered the rotary from Route 1 South without yielding or stopping striking his vehicle and forcing it off the rotary onto a grassy embankment. The Defendant testified when she entered the rotary, she was in the right-hand lane and the Plaintiff was in the left-hand lane at which point in time the Plaintiff without using his indicator simply sped up and attempted to exit the rotary, turning right and cutting in front of the Defendant’s vehicle causing the accident. Detailed photographs at the accident scene and vehicles were enlarged and used at the time of trial for both parties to support their positions and movement of the vehicles shortly before the accident took place. Plaintiff claimed significant injuries, including (1) disc herniations at C3-C4, C4-C5; (2) lumbar herniation of the L4-L5; (3) left shoulder internal derangement and impingement; (4) cervical strain; and (5) acute thoracic strain. The Plaintiff underwent surgery to her cervical spine and also underwent significant treatment for the left shoulder injury including subacominal injections. The Plaintiff had approximately $60,000 in medical bills and significant loss wage claim of $100,000. The Defendant’s expert witness Dr. DiTullio testified the Plaintiff’s cervical and lumbar herniations were all unrelated to the October 14, 2011 accident. The Plaintiff’s pre-existing congenital condition including a narrowing of the spinal canal together with degenerative disc disease was the cause of the Plaintiff’s current injuries and the need for surgery. The Plaintiff submitted testimony from the treating physicians which contradicted Dr. DiTullio’s testimony, but acknowledged the degenerative joint disease. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant finding no negligence. 2017.Marsha Chery vs. Marcia GordonBoston Municipal CourtOn or about September 25, 2013 the Defendant was operating a motor vehicle at the intersection of New England Avenue and Talbot Avenue, Dorchester, Massachusetts when the accident occurred. The Defendant was attempting to take a left-hand turn and was trapped in the intersection when the light had turned from green to yellow to red. The Defendant had already committed to taking a left and was fully into the intersection blocking traffic to her right and her left. The Plaintiff approached the intersection from the Defendant’s right and claimed that the Defendant continued to make the left-hand turn on a red light at which time the impact between the two vehicles took place. Plaintiff claimed injuries to her neck, back, post-traumatic headaches and approximately $10,000 in medical bills, but no loss wages. The Court granted the Defendant’s Motion for a Directed Verdict at the close of the Plaintiff’s case finding no negligence. 2017.Evgeny S. Sushko vs. Adam C. Veary Barnstable Superior CourtThis is a case which arose out of a motor vehicle accident on June 28, 2011 on Route 28 in West Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The Defendant stipulated to the liability and tried the case on the issues of causation and damages. The Plaintiff testified including post-concussion symptoms together with neck and back injuries. He asserted approximately $20,000.00 in special damages (including medical bills and lost wages). Plaintiff, a construction manager for a Cape Cod general contractor, testified at the time of trial he was unable to work for a significant period of time as a result of his injuries including post concussion complications that prevented him from being able to carry out his normal supervisory responsibilities. Evidence was obtained that Plaintiff had taken an extended vacation to Florida during the time period of his claimed injuries and partial disability. The appraiser on behalf of the Defendant testified to the moderate amount of physical damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the accident. Individual Voir Dire was permitted for the selection of the jury and was helpful to both the Plaintiff and Defendant in identifying potentially biased jurors and producing a well-balanced and attentive jury. The jury found for the Defendant, finding no causation. 2017.John Doe vs. ABC Manufacturer, Inc.Suffolk Superior CourtSullivan & Associates, LLC successfully obtained a favorable settlement in the amount of $150,000 in a products liability action arising out of a defective star point socket bit. Sullivan & Associates, LLC brought a subrogation action in Suffolk Superior Court against an overseas product manufacturer and wholesale tool supplier after the subject tool shattered causing a significant eye injury to an automotive mechanic. It was alleged that a material deficiency in the manufacturing process (heat treatment, chemical composition, microstructure issues) within the subject bit more than likely contributed to the catastrophic torsional overload resulting in the shattered bit entering the claimants eye. The Firm retained a Professional Engineer and Metallurgy Expert to establish the subject tool was defective and in an unsafe condition when it shattered while being used in a reasonable manner and in a customary application for which subject tools are designed and intended. The matter was settled prior to trial in 2016.Accursio Oliva ppa Rosalinda Oliva vs. Ana MunizPeabody District CourtOn April 18, 2012 the Defendant was driving in Gloucester, MA when the Plaintiff, a minor pedestrian, attempted to cross a street when he was struck by the motor vehicle. The issue was hotly contested at trial as to whether or not the Plaintiff was walking or whether or not he was running when he entered the street. The accident happened during the daylight and the Plaintiff took the position the Defendant was not driving in a reasonable manner at all times and keeping a proper lookout for pedestrians. A further contested issue was the point of impact where the Plaintiff said the Defendant had run the Plaintiff down and the Defendant had stated that the Plaintiff had walked into the right front passenger wheel well areal and not the front bumper area. The Plaintiff suffered a fracture of his foot as a result of the vehicle running over his foot at the point of impact. He was taken to Addison Gilbert Hospital where he was casted and remained out of school for some time. He had follow up medical care at an orthopedist and made a strong recovery from the fracture. The Plaintiff suffered approximately $12,000.00 in medical bills and lost wages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant. 2016.David A. DeMarco vs. Charles H. Nuytten d/b/a CN BlocksWoburn District CourtThis case arises from the sale of a custom designed race car engine block. The Plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, alleged the Defendant, a Texas Corporation, sold him a defective product and brought suit in Massachusetts. The Plaintiff had called the Texas-based Defendant about ordering the engine block and then later faxed an executed order form to the company. Sullivan & Associates, LLC filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction on behalf of the Defendant. The Plaintiff argued the Defendant subjected itself to Massachusetts jurisdiction by not only completing the transaction with him, but also by maintaining a “highly interactive website,” which purposely directed activities at Massachusetts residents. However, Sullivan & Associates successfully argued: (1) the forum selection clause in the order form, stating the venue for disputes would be Texas, was not irrational; (2) the Defendant owned no property, maintained no offices, and did not advertise in Massachusetts; (3) the subject sale was an isolated transaction; and (4) the Defendant’s generally non-interactive website was not enough to establish jurisdiction. The court after consideration of all the issues dismissed the case in 2016.Keith Furtado vs. George Baker and Leonora BakerFall River District CourtThe Plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle on Route 6 in Swansea, MA when he approached the intersection with Gardner’s Neck Road where the Defendant was taking a left hand turn. The Defendant was a senior citizen who just returned from a clam chowder lunch with her disabled husband. The Defendant had multiple medical conditions which prevented her from being able to appear for trial. The Plaintiff vigorously objected to the failure of the Defendant to appear at the time of trial and allowing the Defendant to read any portion of the Defendant’s transcript in evidence. A brief evidentiary hearing was conducted via telephone with the Defendant’s treating physician pursuant to Commonwealth v. Housewright, 470 Mass. 665 (2015). Following the evidentiary hearing with the treating physician, portions of the Defendant’s testimony was allowed to be read in evidence on the issue of liability as the Defendant was unavailable for trial. One of the significant issues at trial was the issue of the Plaintiff’s speed at the time of the intersection and the topography of the intersection and the slight rise before the intersection which impeded the view of both operators of the motor vehicles. There was substantial damage to both vehicles which were totaled as a result of the accident. The Plaintiff’s injuries at the time of trial were left shoulder, neck and back injuries. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant. 2016.Idemudia Iyore vs. Kory Laznick and Casee LaznickChelsea District CourtThe Plaintiff filed suit as the result of a rotary accident on Route 60 in Revere, MA at the Copeland Rotary in which both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were traveling on the rotary at the time of the collision. The Plaintiff claimed $15,000.00 in medical bills and lost wages as a result of the accident. The Defendant contested liability throughout the trial and pointed out numerous inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s description of the accident at deposition and then later at trial. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was responsible for having failed to yield while entering a rotary. The Defendant denied the allegation and asserted in fact it was the Plaintiff who was exiting the rotary at the time of the collision. The Plaintiff asserted that he had suffered injuries to his left shoulder, neck and back and was unable to work for a period of time at his full time position as a limousine driver. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendants. 2016.Shannon Venezia vs. Nancy DelanoWareham District Court This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident in which Sullivan & Associates, LLC was defending the operator of a motor vehicle that was involved in an intersection accident in which the Defendant was making a left hand turn in Plymouth, MA. The evidence at the time of trial demonstrated that the Plaintiff was traveling at a high rate of speed at the time the Defendant was executing her left hand turn. The Plaintiff had substantial property damage to her vehicle. The Plaintiff submitted further damages at the time of trial including medical bills and additional lost wages totaling approximately another $10,000.00 in damages. The Plaintiff further asserted that she had suffered injuries to her wrist, leg, back and neck. The issue the jury had to determine was whether or not the Plaintiffs and Defendants had been in compliance with 720 CMR 9.06(1) Driving Within Marked Lanes. Finally, evidence was introduced documenting significant preexisting conditions of the Plaintiff prior to the motor vehicle accident. A Barnstable County jury returned a verdict for the Defendant. 2015.Porter v. O’TooleMiddlesex Superior CourtThis case arose out of a motor vehicle accident on December 2, 2009 in which the Defendant rear-ended a vehicle which was stopped in his lane of traffic, forcing the vehicle across the road and into the path of the oncoming Plaintiff vehicle. Liability was hotly contested. This was a two-impact accident which was caused by the “sudden and emergency” operation of the vehicle by the Defendant. Specifically, the accident took place in the winter and the floor mat in the Defendant’s vehicle by the gas and brake pedals had slipped and bunched up creating a condition in which the Defendant could not fully access his brake. The Plaintiff asserted the Defendant was nevertheless liable as it was the Defendant’s operation of the vehicle, carelessness in checking to determine whether or not the vehicle was safe to drive before driving it, and otherwise taking responsibility for the operation and maintenance of his vehicle. The Plaintiff sustained injuries to her back, her hip and her right lower extremity. The Plaintiff had approximately $40,000.00 in medical bills. In addition, the Plaintiff initially had a substantial lost wage claim which was waived at the time of trial. The case was tried before a Norfolk County jury, finding no negligence, resulting in a Defendant’s verdict. 2015Machado v. FieldingMalden District CourtThis is a civil action which arises out of a motor vehicle accident which the Plaintiff and Defendant were traveling on a congested thoroughfare through Everett, MA. The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant traveled into her lane of traffic striking her vehicle causing her to lose control and strike a parked motor vehicle. The Defendant’s vehicle also lost control because of the collision and struck a plow parked on the side of the road. The Plaintiff suffered upper extremity and lower extremity injuries. The Plaintiff further asserted she was unable to return to work, suffered permanent and partial disability as a result of the accident. The case was tried before a Middlesex County jury with a verdict returning for the Defendant. 2015Tammy Butland vs. Jonathan SaundersMiddlesex Superior CourtThis is a civil motor vehicle/negligence case in which the Plaintiff Butland was rear-ended by the Defendant Saunders suffered a fracture and acute disc herniation in the C5/C6 together with an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition to the Plaintiff’s lumbar spine. The Defendant was a teenage driver at the time of the accident. Plaintiff treated for a period of four years resulting in a cervical fusion of the C5/C6 vertebrae. Treatment included physical therapy, spinal injections and finally surgery. The Plaintiff had $100,000.00 in medical bills and was also claiming lost wages in the amount of $50,000.00. 

At trial the treating physician and the Defendant’s consulting expert witness held contrary opinions as to the causative relationship between the motor vehicle accident and the subsequent cervical disc fusion surgery. The Plaintiff’s Complaint sought damages for negligence as well as a claim for loss of consortium on behalf of the Plaintiff’s husband. The Plaintiff in closing argument pursuant to the M.G.L. Chapter 234, Section 28 argued to the jury and requested a specific monetary figure in the amount of $380,000.00. The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant of no negligence. 2015.Jennifer Gould vs. Interstate Container Westminster, LLC, et alWorcester Superior CourtThe general liability action which arose out of a fall the Plaintiff suffered as a result of an allegedly unreasonable accumulation of snow and ice in the Defendant’s parking lot where she was working as a temporary employee at the manufacturing facility. The Plaintiff suffered a fracture to her wrist which resulted in a malunion fracture and a recommended future osteotomy. The Plaintiff incurred approximately $15,000.00 in medical bills and claimed $50,000.00 in lost wages.The case was withdrawn on the first day of trial with a judgment for the Defendant. 2015.George Castillo vs. Tiffany JordanBrighton District CourtThis was a pedestrian motor vehicle accident in which the minor Plaintiff was hit by the Defendant vehicle operator while crossing the street in front of the Plaintiff’s residence.The Plaintiff suffered minor head injury and soft tissue damages as a result of the impact.The jury returned a verdict for the Defendant finding no negligence. 2015.Santiago v. Rich ProductsMiddlesex Superior CourtUnfortunately, the Plaintiff, a 7-year-old student at an elementary school in Lowell, MA, in this products liability case choked on a meatball at lunch and lost consciousness. Deprivation of oxygen led to profound brain damage and permanent disability. He incurred over $1,800,000.00 in medical bills, an estimated $12,000,000.00 in future medicals and in excess of $1,200,000.00 in alleged lost earning capacity. Witnesses testified that the Plaintiff and several friends were having a race to see who could eat several meatballs the fastest when one meatball lodged in the Plaintiff’s trachea. Teachers on duty first slapped him on the back then twice attempted the Heimlich maneuver, in their ultimately unsuccessful efforts to dislodge the meatball. 

The Plaintiff’s elementary school was chaotic on the day of the accident. The principal was at a local emergency room after being attacked by a student, the vice principal was out sick and other supervisory administrators were unavailable.With the breakdown of the chain of command, there was a delay in calling 911. When EMTs arrived, Plaintiff was unresponsive. They eventually cleared his trachea and got him breathing, then transported him to a local hospital. However, the lack of oxygen caused permanent, irreversible brain damage and the Plaintiff is a quadriplegic, blind and unable to speak, eat or perform other normal functions. Plaintiff sued the City of Lowell, the EMT service and the manufacturer of the meatballs, Rich Products Corp. for negligence and breach of warranty. The City was dismissed from the case in summary judgment: under Massachusetts law, public employees can only rarely be sued for negligence in the performance of their discretionary duties. The ambulance company settled out of court and the lawsuit eventually proceeded against just the meatball producer, Rich Products Corp. 

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was liable because, while most meatballs contain soy in some form, Rich Products used soy protein isolate (SPI) to increase protein content and reduce fat content. Plaintiff experts testified that their testing confirmed the Rich Products’ meatballs were tougher and harder to chew than prototype meatballs not using SPI. Plaintiff experts also testified that the size of the meatballs (1/2 oz., 1-inch diameter) was the perfect size to block the trachea and consequently increased the choking hazard. The tests used involved a very precise cutting machine which measured the tensile strength of the meatballs upon being cut and the amount of pressure needed to cut them. The result, Plaintiff claimed, was that in comparison, Defendant’s meatballs were unreasonably tough and chewy. 

Plaintiff further argued meatballs should provide warnings similar to those voluntarily placed on some hot dog products by their manufacturers, which provide choking warnings. Plaintiff experts testified that Defendant was responsible for including a similar warning on the meatball packaging, cautioning that young children should be supervised when consuming the product and/or that the product should be cut into smaller pieces. Defense conducted similar instrument tests, using Plaintiff’s prototype meatballs, Rich Products meatballs and samples from three major competitors of Rich Products. It also tested all the meatballs with a consumer test panel comprised of trained consumers who routinely judge food products for qualities such as taste, texture, mouthfeel and other attributes. The results of both sets of tests conducted by the Defendant were the same. The Rich meatballs finished in the middle of the pack and were not, defense maintained, unreasonably tough nor did they constitute a choking hazard. The meatball was manufactured in compliance with strict USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and FDA production, food safety and labeling regulations and/or guidelines. The meatball also complied with all Child Nutrition (CN) requirements in order to gain Federal approval to be served in public schools as part of the CN School Lunch Program. 

Defense choking expert also testified that the Plaintiff’s choking had nothing to do with the texture of the meatball. At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was engaged in a meatball eating race with other children in the cafeteria. The Defendant argued that it was this eating contest and not any characteristic of the meatball that led to the unfortunate accident and that the Plaintiff had inhaled as he hurriedly swallowed the meatball during the meatball eating race. This caused his epiglottis to automatically shift to allow air in and the air and meatball entered his trachea at the same time, causing him to choke.The jury deliberated for one full day and returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant. 2014.Sullivan v. Cechinel & TeixeiraLowell District CourtWe represented the Defendant and operator of a vehicle involved in a two car accident. The Defendant operator had consumed alcoholic beverages at a cookout and caused the accident by making an improper left turn at an intersection in Malden, Massachusetts and striking the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Defendant offered to stipulate to liability, but the Plaintiff refused. The Plaintiff claimed injuries to his neck, mid back and low back and incurred $10,000.00 in medical bills and approximately $1,000.00 in lost wages. The Plaintiff further alleged the Defendant was negligent in entrusting the vehicle to the operator. Plaintiff later moved to amend his complaint to include gross negligence and infliction of emotional distress counts against both Defendants. At trial, the negligent entrustment, gross negligence and infliction of emotional distress counts were all dismissed by the Judge, leaving only the negligence count against the Defendant operator. After a two day trial,the jury issued an award of $5,000.00 to the Plaintiff, which was nullified by the application of an $8,000.00 personal injury protection offset pursuant to M.G.L. c. 90 §34M, resulting in a $0 Judgment for the Plaintiff. 2014.Virginia Malloy and Christopher Malloy v. Mid-Atlantic Finance Co., Inc. & S.N.A.R.E.Quincy District Court
Norfolk Superior Court
US Bankruptcy Court, Massachusetts
Quincy District Small Claims Court
American Arbitration AssociationThis case arose out of the repossession of the Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Plaintiffs purchased a vehicle, and the finance contract was purchased by the Defendant Mid-Atlantic Finance, who we represented. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant converted their property, violated Massachusetts repossession laws and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (among other claims) and that these violations constituted unfair and deceptive acts under M.G.L. c. 93A. Plaintiffs demanded $35,000.00 in addition to approximately $1,500.00 in attorney fees prior to commencing litigation. The contract for the sale of the vehicle included an arbitration clause requiring the parties to submit any claims to binding arbitration at the election of either party. Defendant so elected, but Plaintiffs refused, necessitating the Defendant to file a complaint for arbitration in Norfolk Superior Court, as the Superior Court holds exclusive jurisdiction to hear questions of arbitration. Over repeated opposition by Plaintiffs, Mid-Atlantic’s portion of the litigation was subsequently transferred to Norfolk Superior Court and the parties were ordered to proceed to arbitration at American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). 

Plaintiffs next alleged that Defendant’s filing of the Demand for Arbitration with AAA constituted a violation of Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy discharge and filed an Adversarial Complaint for Violation of the Discharge Agreement. Following oral arguments in US Bankruptcy Court, Defendant was granted summary judgment as Plaintiffs’ allegations lacked merit. 

Despite the pending proceedings in Norfolk Superior Court and at AAA, Plaintiffs filed a complaint Quincy District Small Claims Court in an attempt to avoid arbitration. This litigation was stayed by Norfolk Superior Court pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings. At the time of arbitration, Plaintiffs sought over $40,000.00 in attorney fees. 

After a single day arbitration hearing, we successfully arbitrated this case and were able to limit the arbitrator’s award to Plaintiff to $3,980.00. The arbitrator further awarded $1,326.67 in attorney fees which was nullified by the application of an $15,000.00 settlement offset from Plaintiffs’ settlement with co-Defendant S.N.A.R.E., resulting in no attorney fees to Plaintiffs’ Attorney. 2014.Michelle Brennan v. Kelley HosmernMiddlesex Superior CourtIn this civil action, Plaintiff, 40 at the time and unemployed, was parked by the side of the street near Horn Pond in Woburn, Massachusetts when she was hit from behind by a vehicle driven by Defendant Kelley Hosmer. She was removed by ambulance to a local hospital where she presented with back and neck pain. The Plaintiff claimed she informed the medical staff at the hospital of her knee injury, but there was no documentation of this complaint. It was not until months later that there was confirmation on the record where Plaintiff alleged right knee pain, which she related to the motor vehicle accident. There were attempts made to heal the injury through conservative treatment including physical therapy, but eventually she underwent surgery to repair the knee. At that point, a lateral meniscus tear was discovered and repaired. She also suffered soft tissue damage in the neck and upper back. Defendant Hosmer admitted liability, but challenged the causation of the knee injuries, contending that they were preexisting conditions resulting from chronic degenerative joint disease. Plaintiff’s medical expert, who was also her treating surgeon, testified that the injury was the result of a sudden trauma; i.e., the collision. He testified that she had $45,000 in medical bills and future bills of $50,000. Defendant’s medical expert, and practicing orthopedic surgeon, testified that the injury was the result of a chronic degenerative condition, although the soft tissue damage was probably the result of the collision. Defense produced medical records showing that Brennan had a long history of degenerative joint problems in her neck and back going back to 1999. She also had a significant history of prescription pain medication which was not altered following the accident. The jury deliberated for 1 hour and 30 minutes and returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. 2014.Virginia Cummings v. Patricia WahlbergMiddlesex Superior CourtIn this civil action, the Plaintiff asserted that this was a case of clear-cut liability which the Defendant rear ended the Plaintiff causing her severe injuries. The accident occurred in heavy traffic at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Route 16 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Our insured (Defendant) rear-ended the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff filed suit against our insured alleging that unlike the majority of individuals who would not have been injured in this accident, she was an “eggshell Plaintiff” in that evidence would show she was injured due to a delicate medical condition that preexisted the accident. The motor vehicle accident, although minor, was one which triggered a dormant myofascial pain syndrome and post mastectomy reconstructive syndrome that the Plaintiff had previously been suffering from for a period of 10 years. The Plaintiff presented a medical expert witness who testified that the aggravation of this preexisting condition was serious and caused her to incur approximately $100,000.00 in medical bills and treatment which were all reasonable, necessary and related to the motor vehicle accident. He described her condition as one which was “dormant” and that was “triggered” by the motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff also alleged that she was unable to work as a real estate developer during this time period and suffered approximately $500,000.00 in lost earnings. The Defendant’s medical expert witness, a practicing orthopedic surgeon, testified based on his education, training and experience that the Plaintiff only suffered a minor cervical strain as a result of the motor vehicle accident. He estimated there would be a 6-8 week period of partial disability and that the medical treatment during that time period was reasonable and necessary. He further testified that the remainder of the medical treatment for the past 6 years was completely unnecessary, unreasonable and unrelated to the motor vehicle accident. The jury deliberated for 30 minutes and returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. Our client was awarded and collected $1,830.73 in court costs from the Plaintiff. 2013.Fernando Oliveira v. Jason Oliveira et alBristol Superior CourtIn this civil action, the Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle operated by his son, who was the Defendant. This accident occurred when the Defendant came upon four other vehicles stopped in the road after an accident had occurred between them. Our client struck the last vehicle in this four-car chain of vehicles. The Plaintiff filed suit against all five drivers involved in this multi-car accident. The four other drivers reached settlement with the Plaintiff prior to trial. The Plaintiff, who was a General Manger of a recreational vehicle dealership, claimed severe left knee injuries which resulted in total knee replacement surgery, incurred medical bills of $140,000.00 and also alleged his knee injuries were so severe he could no longer work. The Plaintiff presented a medical expert witness who testified the Plaintiff’s knee injuries and resulting surgery was the result of the accident. The Plaintiff also presented testimony from an economist who testified the Plaintiff had suffered a lost earning capacity in the amount of approximately $1,000,000.00. Two expert witnesses testified for the Defendant at trial. The Defendant’s medical expert witness, a practicing orthopedic surgeon, testified the manner in which the Plaintiff claimed his left knee struck the dashboard could not have caused the condition which necessitated the total knee replacement surgery and that the surgery was actually required due to degenerative conditions in the Plaintiff’s left knee. The Defendant’s vocational rehabilitation expert also appeared for the Defendant and testified the Plaintiff could have returned to work after this accident and worked without any limitation. The jury deliberated for two hours and returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant. 2012.Kantorosinski Chiropractic, Inc. v. Encompass Insurance Company of MassachusettsSalem District CourtIn this civil action, the Plaintiff alleged Encompass Insurance Company of Massachusetts (Encompass) violated the statutory provisions of M.G.L. c. 90 §34M by failing to pay the medical bills of two underlying claimants pursuant to Personal Injury Protection insurance issued to the underlying claimants by Encompass. The Plaintiff alleged that he had sent the underlying claimants’ medical records and accompanying bills to the Defendant who refused to pay the medical bills. The Defendant alleged that the medical bills were neither reasonable nor necessary and therefore it had no duty to pay them. At trial the Plaintiff chiropractor testified the medical bills represented reasonable and necessary medical treatment related to the underlying motor vehicle accident. The personal injury protection claims adjuster and the Special Investigations Unit investigator who investigated this claim both testified the claim was not paid after a thorough investigation by Encompass showed this accident was too minor to have caused any injuries and as a result the unpaid medical bills were not reasonable or necessary. A chiropractor who reviewed the disputed medical records and bills testified on behalf of the Defendant and stated in his opinion the complaints of pain and injury made by the claimants were not consistent with the minor motor vehicle accident in which they had been involved. A property damage analysis expert also appeared for the Defendant and testified the accident between the two vehicles involved in this claim was so minor that no vehicle incurred any damage and in fact there was not even any paint transfer between the two vehicles. Finally, the operator of the vehicle which struck the rear of the vehicle operated by the underlying claimants testified at trial and described the minor nature of this impact. The jury deliberated for two hours and returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant. 2012.Rose et al v. Highway Equipment CompanySuffolk Superior CourtThis was a products liability case in which the Plaintiff Mr. Rose suffered a near amputation of his right hand while performing maintenance upon a sand spreading machine manufactured by the Defendant. Mr. Rose claimed that he was performing maintenance to the sand spreading machine when his sleeve became entangled in unguarded chains and sprockets at the end of the machine’s conveyor belt, causing his hand to be dragged into the machine and nearly amputated. He alleged the machine was defectively designed because there were no guards over the sprockets and chains within which he became entangled. The Plaintiff incurred $350,000.00 in medical bills and $75,000.00 in lost wages. The Plaintiff’s Complaint also contained a count of loss of consortium. The Defendant argued that the machine was properly designed but had been modified in a manner that defeated the sand spreading machine’s safety design. The sand spreading machine was designed to be mounted on a flat bed truck within 2 inches of the truck’s cab. This placement would prevent anyone from getting near the unguarded sprockets and chains. Before Mr. Rose’s accident, the sand spreading machine was removed from the truck it was originally mounted on and mounted on a second truck with almost two feet of space between that truck’s cab and the chains and sprockets within which Mr. Rose became entangled. The Defendant argued this improper mounting of the sand spreading machine on the second truck allowed Mr. Rose to have access to parts of the machine he never would have been able to come into contact with had the sand spreading machine been remounted correctly. The Defendant also argued Mr. Rose was intoxicated at the time of this accident as blood alcohol testing performed on him after this accident occurred showed the presence of alcohol in his blood at the time of the accident. At trial the Plaintiff’s expert mechanical engineer testified the sand spreading machine was defective in design because the sprockets and chains were completely unguarded, despite the fact that it was feasible to place guards upon them. A medical expert witness for the Plaintiff also testified the blood alcohol testing performed upon the Plaintiff was unreliable. A representative of the Defendant testified the machine was not defective in design, and that the incorrect reinstallation of the machine was the cause of Mr. Rose’s injuries. The Defendant’s medical expert testified the multiple blood alcohol tests performed upon the Plaintiff were reliable, correctly done and showed that the Plaintiff was intoxicated and impaired at the time this accident occurred. The jury deliberated for 4 hours and returned a verdict for the Defendant on all counts of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 2012., 2013

Representative Clients:

  • Acadia Insurance CompanyAlliance Laundry Systems, LLCArrowpoint Capital CorporationAtamian Volkswagen, Inc.Atlantic Mutual Insurance CompanyBaker Tractor Company, Inc.Bobcat of Boston, Inc.Boston Old Colony Insurance CompanyBoston Towing & Transportation Co., Inc.Bradford Trailers, Inc.Christmas Tree Shops, Inc.C.N. Wood Company, Inc.Copeland Toyota, Inc.Dairyland Insurance CompanyDartmouth Dodge, Inc.DeSantis ChevroletEJT Management Company, Inc.Equipment and Systems for Industry, Inc.Federated Insurance CompanyGrava Chrysler of Medford, Inc.Hanover Insurance GroupHonda Cars of Boston, Inc.Land Transportation, LLCLiberty Chevrolet, Inc.Liberty Mutual Insurance GroupM.J. Daly & Sons, Inc.Middlesex Insurance CompanyNew England Industrial Truck, Inc.Newly Weds Foods, Inc.Panera Bread CompanyPoirier’s Buick, Inc.Reebok International, Ltd.Rich Products CorporationSalem Place Condominium AssociationSchmidt Equipment, Inc.Sentry Insurance, A Mutual CompanyStoneham Motor Company, Inc.The Travelers CompaniesUtica National Insurance GroupZurich North America, 2013
Show More
Office Location for Christopher John Sullivan

500 Cummings Park West, Suite #4700
Woburn, MA 01801

Christopher John Sullivan:

Last Updated: 6/26/2019

Page Generated: 0.25576210021973 sec