Settlements & Verdicts 2024

In 2022, the plaintiff, 30, was seen by her gynecologist for her routine PAP test that was read by the pathologist as negative. However, in testing performed in early 2024, the screening performed by her gynecologist diagnosed a cervical cancer that required immediate treatment including radiation and chemotherapy. A Review of the 2022 PAP revealed the suspected presence of cancer that required a biopsy that was not performed that delayed treatment. The Plaintiff is doing well but required a hysterectomy, She had previously had two healthy children.

On June 27, 2013, the employee, (30), while employed as a truck driver by GM Philadelphia, injured his back while dragging an engine, that was subsequently diagnosed as herniated discs in his lower back at L4-L5 & L5-S1 for which he subsequently underwent surgery. A petition was filed by the employee seeking benefits for his work related injury, which was opposed by his employer. Attorney Nelia DeStefano from our office won the hearing and a pre-trial order was entered on September 16, 2013 finding that his injury was causally related to his employment, and ordering the employer to pay the employee back benefits from June 28, 2013 and continuing in the amount of $770.98.
On February 1, 2019, the Employer, filed a Petition seeking a reduction of his weekly benefits claiming that he was able to return to work. Attorney DeStefano opposed the petition, claiming that the employee continued to remain disabled. The Court denied the employer’s petition. The employer filed an appeal and requested a trial before the workers compensation court.
A trial was commenced in 2024, which extended over several months.

VIDEO SURVEILLANCE

In an effort to demonstrate that the employee was capable of performing light duty work, the employer retained Gallagher Bassett Investigative Services to conduct video surveillance of the employee. The investigator conducted over fifty-seven (57) hours of video surveillance of the employee on eight (8) eight days over a five (5) month period extending from February 4, 2020 through July 22, 2020. At trial the attorney for the employer submitted into evidence snippets of the fifty-seven (57) hours which showed the employee on several occasions driving and sitting in his car, power washing his car, driving to the grocery store, and driving with his daughter to a gas station to put gasoline in his daughter’s jet ski.
Attorney DeStefano successfully argued that the five months of surveillance videos that captured activities of the employee did not establish a regular pattern of activity as he was primarily observed standing, talking or driving. There was no evidence that the employee performed all these activities on a regular basis as at best the videos demonstrated he could perform sedentary activities for no more than a few minutes. The employer also retained a medical orthopedics expert who testified that the employee was no longer disabled.
In August 2024, after the conclusion of the evidence at trial Attorney DeStefano convinced the judge to reject the opinion of the Employers’ doctor and video evidence. As a result the trial judge found in favor of the employee and denied the employers petition to terminate his weekly workers compensation benefits.
Attorney DeStefano subsequently successfully negotiated a lump sum settlement in the amount of $675,000.00 plus $80, 957.00 which was set aside for potential future medical bills.
Including payments for his weekly benefits, the employee received a total in excess of $ 1,2 Million dollars in workers compensation benefits.
LESSONS TO LEARNED
The lesson to be learned from this case is that plaintiffs and employees that are injured must be made aware that insurance companies will routinely hire private investigators to conduct surveillance of them to be used to reduce any settlement or to terminate benefits!

On December 20, 2022 at approximately 2:00 p.m., the Plaintiff was walking north on Metacom Avenue in Bristol, Rhode Island. As she approached the intersection of Franklin Street, a van, operated by the defendant, negligently made a right hand turn onto Metacom Avenue and struck the Plaintiff.

Following the accident, Bristol Fire Department was dispatched to the scene and  was found lying on her left side in the roadway. She was transported to Rhode Island Hospital’s trauma unit with complaints of pain along the left side of her body. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with having suffered left elbow fracture and left thigh fracture. the next day, on December 21, 2022, the plaintiff underwent surgery for the fractures.

Upon her discharge on December 23, 2022, she was transferred for physical therapy and occupational therapy services for approximately three weeks.

The plaintiff made a good recovery and after suit was filed and after extensive negotiations our office convinced the insurer to a settlement in the amount of $600,000.00.

At approximately 5:00 a.m. on the morning of October 23, 2021, the Plaintiff, 46, walked into the rear loading dock bay of a Target Superstore in which a  loading truck was parked and had fallen asleep on the ground between the loading dock wall and the truck.

Prior to the Plaintiffs arrival at the loading dock, the loading truck had backed into the loading dock and the driver left the parked truck.

A short time later, the driver of the truck returned to the truck and drove off and in the process ran over the legs of the Plaintiff causing fracture of both legs.

The Defendant loading truck insurer initially refused to accept any liability claiming that the Plaintiff was intoxicated and fell asleep under the parked truck. The case was further complicated as subsequent to the accident the Plaintiff was incarcerated for unrelated matters.

Attorney Brian Cunha investigated the accident and cited the rules to the insurer under The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration §392.7, that explicitly requires a pre-trip walk around inspection of the vehicle prior to operation.  Brian Cunha convinced the insurer that had the driver performed a walk-around, he would have observed the Plaintiff laying on the ground and not run him over with his vehicle causing the injuries to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff was transported by ambulance to Boston Medical Center for evaluation and treatment of his injuries and was found to be suffering from bilateral femur fractures. He was admitted for orthopedic consultation and surgical intervention
for his injuries.
The case was settled after a full day mediation with the mediator, Suzanne Del Vecchio at Commonwealth Mediations.

Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) recently agreed to settle approximately 15,000 Hernia Mesh lawsuits presently pending in the Providence RI Superior Court.  Our office is local counsel for numerous law firms from around the country for whom we have filed almost 5000 cases. The total payouts could exceed $1.3 Billion.

The Hernial mesh lawsuits allege that C.R. Bard, located in Rhode Island  and Davol Inc., which are owned by BD, designed defective mesh products, failed to adequately test them, and didn’t properly warn users about potential risks.

As these products broke down, they reportedly caused infections, organ damage, chronic pain, and other serious complications.

For over 45 years, Brian Cunha & Associates has fought to hold companies like Bard accountable for harming patients.

On October 10 2024, Bard’s parent company Becton Dickinson agreed to an out-of-court settlement for hernia mesh lawsuits. The settlement involves both cases in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) and those filed in the Rhode Island state court.

In total, around 38,000 claims will be resolved, including:

• Nearly 25,000 hernia mesh claims in the Federal Ohio MDL, which was first filed in 2018
• Over 15,000 claims in the Rhode Island State litigation where Bard’s headquarters is located

The individual specific Bard hernia mesh settlement amounts haven’t been announced, as a formula is being devised based on the medical condition and severity of the injury to each potential claimant.

The company’s last quarterly report set aside $1.7 Billion for product liability litigation, and BD noted the hernia mesh settlement was a “large majority” of this amount.

The settlement includes a requirement that Bard make payments over several years, with the first hernia mesh settlement being paid by the end of 2024.

A History of Bard Hernia Mesh Litigation

The first hernia mesh lawsuit was filed in Rhode Island in 2006, and BD got involved in the litigation after purchasing Bard in 2017.

As these lawsuits progressed, bellwether trials were scheduled for cases in the MDL. A bellwether trial helps predict how a jury might react to a claim, giving an idea of how much may be awarded in similar lawsuits.

C.R. Bard hernia mesh lawsuit updates so far include:

• 2021: A jury ruled in Bard’s favor during the first bellwether trial of the MDL.
• 2022: The second bellwether trial awarded $250,000 to the victim.
• 2023: A third bellwether trial resulted in a $500,000 verdict against the company.
• 2022: The first state court trial in Rhode Island granted $4.8 Million to victims.
• 2024: A fourth bellwether trial was removed from the court calendar, and the judge told both sides to come to an agreement.

After three trial losses in a row that awarded increasing amounts of compensation, Bard settled all of the cases filed prior to July 2023 with a proviso that there would be further negotiation regarding cases filed between July 2023 and August 2024.

At Brian Cunha & Associates

Our firm has successfully handled claims involving many defective products, medical devices, and other personal injuries caused by negligence. We’ve recovered hundreds of millions total nationwide.

On May 3, 2017, The Defendant car dealership conducted a wholesale used car auction at the facility which was crowded with auction attendees who were unprotected by physical barriers or safety policies from the risk of being struck by vehicles proceeding through the crowd.

The Defendant dealership assigned its employee to drive a 2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee
into the auction facility. The employee negligently operated the Jeep so as to lose control of the vehicle and strike numerous lawful visitors, including the six decedents one of whom was represented by our office.

The subject 2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee was owned by the dealership, which we claimed contained a defect, of which the dealership knew or reasonably should have known, tending to make the vehicle difficult to control. The defendant, negligently failed to advise or warn the dealership or our clients of the vehicle’s unsafe condition.

Our office in conjunction with other attorneys that represented the victims asserted that while operating a dealerships Jeep, was a person for whose conduct the dealership was
responsible. M.G.L. c. 231, §85A provides. “In all actions to recover damages for
injuries to the person or to property or for the death of a person, arising out of an
accident or collision in which a motor vehicle was involved, evidence that at the time of
such accident or collision it was registered in the name of the defendant as owner shall
be prima facie evidence that it was then being operated by and under the control of a
person for whose conduct the defendant was legally responsible, and absence of such
responsibility shall be an affirmative defense to be set up in the answer and proved by the defendant.”

When struck by the subject Jeep, six people were killed and several gravely injured that required hospitalization, incurred medical expenses and lost earning capacity, funeral and burial expenses, and suffered physical and mental pain.

It was our contention that the injury and resulting deaths were caused by the negligence, gross negligence, and wanton and reckless conduct of several Defendants including the dealership.

a. Maintaining the auction facility in a hazardous condition lacking barriers or like
devices to physically separate and protect visitors from automobile traffic within
the facility.

b. Failing to establish or enforce rules, policies or practices that would eliminate or
minimize the danger to auction-goers arising from conflict with vehicle traffic.

c. Failing to properly investigate, train, and supervise the dealerships drivers.

d. Allowed an unfit driver, to operate the subject Jeep.

e. Introducing its vehicles, including the subject Jeep, into the auction facility
known to be in a hazardous condition lacking barriers or like devices to physically
separate and protect visitors from automobile traffic within the facility.

f. Introducing its vehicles, including the subject Jeep, into the auction facility
known to lack rules, policies or practices that would eliminate or minimize the
danger to auction-goers arising from conflict with vehicle traffic.

g. Failing to exercise its retained control of its vehicle and the auction process to
avoid endangering auction attendees.

The case was settled in July 2024 and Attorney Bill Poore from Providence RI was selected to assign damages to the families of the decedents.

On January 21, 2019, at approximately 8:30 p.m.,The Narragansett Electric Co. known to its customers as National Grid, in response to dangerously low pressure in its natural gas distribution pipelines, specifically, Newport and Middletown, shut down its natural gas distribution system on Aquidneck Island. This resulted in a gas service outage to approximately 7,000 customers and retail businesses in Newport and Middletown.
The gas service interruption, which caused a total loss of heat and hot water, persisted from two days to approximately one week, at which time the affected homes became legally habitable as gas service was restored. The events of January 21, 2019 occurred within a set of natural gas pipeline systems serving Rhode Island. The natural gas pipeline systems which serve Aquidneck Island consists of two types of systems. The first is the interstate pipeline system, which distributes natural gas from Massachusetts into Rhode Island that is operated and owned by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, The second system is the intrastate local gas distribution system, which was owned and operated by National Grid who received gas in Portsmouth, from and then distributes the natural gas though its local transmission lines to its customers in Middletown and Newport.

The Plaintiffs asserted in their Complaints against National Grid and Algonquin that the low-pressure condition resulting in the interruption of gas service, commencing on the morning of January 21, 2019, was the result of the alleged negligence of the Defendants, which in turn were the precipitating factors leading directly to the outage.

After extensive discovery Brian Cunha from Brian Cunha & Associates settled the case at a mediation for $2,000,000.00, which was subsequently approved by the Federal Court in Providence RI.

The settlement was limited to loss of use of the premises due to the outage National Grid had previously paid more than $3,000,000.00 in aid its Newport customers for lodging, food and heating assistance.

In addition, more than $1,000,000 was given to aid persons in Newport and Middletown in need of heating assistance. Under the settlement Ninety percent (90%) is being donated to the low income home energy assistance program (“LIHEAP”) of the East Bay Community Action Program (“EBCAP”for the benefit of Newport and Middletown residents and ten percent (10%) to the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (“LISC”) for the benefit of businesses in Newport and Middletown RI.

The Plaintiff was waiting to safely merge onto Wampanoag Trail from County Road in Barrington, RI, when he was suddenly and without warning rear-ended by the Defendant whom was operating a van and transporting patients in the course of his employment.  The impact caused the Plaintiff to strike his head on the steering wheel. Later that same evening, the Plaintiff developed severe neck and back pain. The plaintiff had a long-standing history of neck and back pain prior to this accident, and his flare ups would usually resolve with an epidural steroid injection.  After this accident, the Plaintiff had to undergo a posterior discectomy at lumbar L4-5 and an anterior discectomy fusion at C4-6.

The defense argued that the Plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing, and the surgeries were unrelated to the accident. The Plaintiff filed suit in Providence Superior Court and after a lengthy discovery phase, including taking the Plaintiff’s deposition and an independent medical review.  The parties then agreed to attend mediation and after several weeks of continuing negotiations, the case settled.