At the Law Office of Matthew A. Rubner, a Massachusetts personal injury lawyer serving Boston, Beverly, Peabody, Salem, and clients across the North Shore and throughout Massachusetts, we track every new appellate ruling that affects car accident, premises liability, and medical negligence cases in our state.

Here are the most important recent decisions—and what they mean for injury victims in Massachusetts.

1. Meka v. Haddad

Citation: Meka v. Haddad, No. 24-1425 (1st Cir. Oct. 10, 2025)

Case: A woman broke her pelvis during a forceps-assisted delivery and claimed her doctor failed to warn her about that risk.

Ruling: The trial court sided with the doctor. It said the patient needed expert testimony to prove that the risk of pelvic fracture was “more than negligible,” meaning serious enough that a reasonable patient would have wanted to know about it. Because her experts were excluded for missing discovery deadlines, she couldn’t prove that the lack of warning made a real difference in her decision to consent to the procedure.

Attorney Rubner’s Take: A tough loss for plaintiffs, but an important reminder.
Under the landmark case Harnish v. Children’s Hospital (1982), doctors must tell patients about material risks — those that a reasonable person in the patient’s position would consider significant in deciding whether to undergo treatment. The standard focuses on what a reasonable patient would want to know, not just what most doctors customarily disclose.

But the rule has limits: doctors don’t have to warn about every remote or trivial possibility. If a risk is so minor or unlikely that a reasonable doctor wouldn’t normally disclose it, then it’s considered negligible, and failing to mention it doesn’t violate the duty of informed consent.

To win these cases, a plaintiff must prove:

1. The doctor didn’t disclose a material (not negligible) risk or a reasonable alternative;
2. A reasonable patient, if properly informed, would have made a different choice; and
3. The undisclosed risk actually happened and caused the injury.

Because the Meka plaintiffs had no qualified experts available (failed to avail the medical expert to the defense in discovery, a major misstep) to show the risk of pelvic fracture was more than negligible or that its disclosure would have changed the decision, their claim failed.

Bottom line: Informed consent cases aren’t about whether a patient wasn’t told something — they’re about whether a reasonable doctor should have disclosed it, whether a reasonable patient would have cared, and whether that lack of disclosure changed the outcome. It’s a high bar, and expert testimony is essential to clear it. Expert witnesses must be available to both sides in discovery.

2. O’Brien v. United States

Citation: O’Brien v. United States, No. 24-1844 (1st Cir. Sept. 11, 2025)

Case: A family sued for wrongful death after a loved one died following treatment at a federally funded health center.

Ruling: The court said the doctor was treated as a federal employee under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), so the lawsuit had to follow strict federal deadlines and procedures. Because the family filed late under those federal time limits, the case was dismissed.

Attorney Rubner’s Take: A harsh outcome for victims. If your doctor or clinic receives federal funding, your case may fall under the FTCA—and those cases have shorter filing windows than normal medical malpractice claims. Families can lose their rights before they even know the rules changed. If there’s any question whether a clinic or provider is federally funded, it’s critical to contact an injury lawyer immediately to preserve your claim.

3. Ciampa v. Durham

Citation: Ciampa v. Durham, Mass. Appeals Court (Sept. 2, 2025)

Case: A motorcycle rider who lost his leg after a crash sued multiple defendants, including the driver and her employer. During jury selection, his lawyer tried to ask potential jurors whether they had biases about a “waving” or “signaling” negligence theory—essentially, whether someone who motions another driver to pull out into traffic can be held responsible for the results. The judge refused to allow those specific questions, saying they came too close to arguing the facts of the case before trial even began.

Ruling: The Appeals Court agreed with the judge. It said trial judges in Massachusetts have broad discretion over how attorney-conducted voir dire is handled. While attorneys can ask about general attitudes or bias, they can’t use voir dire to preview their case or lock jurors into a position on a key factual dispute. The proposed questions here were too fact-specific and risked turning jury selection into a mini-trial.

Attorney Rubner’s Take: An important reminder for injury plaintiffs and trial lawyers alike.
Jury selection can shape the entire outcome of a personal-injury case, but Massachusetts judges have wide authority to limit what lawyers can ask potential jurors. Questions that sound like testing liability theories—rather than uncovering bias—will often get shut down.

For attorneys, the lesson is to keep voir dire broad and balanced: focus on fairness, attitudes toward plaintiffs and defendants, or general beliefs about lawsuits and responsibility. A lawyer will always make a clear record if they think a restriction is unfair, because that’s the only way to challenge it later.

For clients, it’s a reminder that the jury-selection process is strategic. The best trial lawyers know how to get jurors talking about bias without crossing the line into arguing the case too soon. A strong start in voir dire often sets the stage for a fair trial and a better result.

4. Arbit v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company

Citation: Arbit v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company, Mass. Appeals Court (pending, reported Oct. 6, 2025, in Mass. Lawyers Weekly)

Case: A pedestrian injured while jumping out of the way of a car tried to get PIP benefits (personal injury protection) from her car insurance. The insurer denied coverage, arguing she wasn’t “struck” because there was no actual contact.

Ruling: The Appeals Court is now deciding whether “struck” under Massachusetts law requires physical contact or whether someone hurt while avoiding a crash still qualifies for PIP benefits.

Attorney Rubner’s Take: Our office has had several recent case with these similar facts, and this is new for the insurer to challenge the applicability of personal injury protection benefits. Insurers often rely on narrow readings to deny valid claims, and this is a classic example of the delay, deny, defend tactic commonly used by greedy insurers to hold onto their record profits rather than to pay injured victims what they are entitled to, including their medical bills. This would be a potentially game-changing case for pedestrians and cyclists. I don’t see the court ruling in favor of the insurance company here, if they do then the current pip statute will likely need to be reworked by the legislature to protect accident victims who nobly avoid the danger zone. Courts in other jurisdictions have already ruled that physical contact isn’t required, and evading the danger zone is covered under the scope of their pip statutes. I would be surprised if the court allows this attempt by the insurer to deny liability.

Notable Recent Verdict: Patron Assaulted Outside Bar – $5.44 Million Settlement

Citation: Patron, 68, assaulted outside bar, suffers broken neck, Mass. Lawyers Weekly (Aug. 24, 2025)

Case: A 68-year-old man leaving a bar after closing time was attacked, thrown to the ground, and suffered a broken neck. The Plaintiff secured a $5.44 million settlement, even though the insurance company initially denied coverage based on an “intentional act” exclusion.

Attorney Rubner’s Take: A major win for the injury victim. Even when insurers claim an incident isn’t covered because it involved a criminal or intentional act (they will ALWAYS try), a skilled attorney can still find ways to argue negligence and other covered theories—including loss of consortium or negligent security. For Massachusetts victims of assaults or attacks on business property, this case is proof that strong lawyering can overcome insurer denials.

Why This Matters

At the Law Office of Matthew A. Rubner, we stay current on every Massachusetts appellate and federal decision shaping negligence and injury law — from Boston and Peabody to Beverly, Salem, and across the Commonwealth. As an experienced trial attorney, Matt Rubner uses these rulings to build stronger cases, anticipate insurer defenses, and secure maximum compensation for clients injured in car crashes, slip-and-fall accidents, medical malpractice, and wrongful death.

Hire Attorney Matt Rubner — a Massachusetts personal injury lawyer who knows the latest case law, understands every rule, and fights relentlessly to get you every dollar you deserve.

Contact Attorney Matt Rubner today at InjuryFirmBoston.com or call 978-394-0347.