seal

Court Case Record BREANA L. BONNES & another vs. SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS GROUP, INC. & others 2012-J-0112 UID(ea03)


BREANA L. BONNES & another vs. SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS GROUP, INC. & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0112


 
Case Number2012-J-0112
Case TitleBREANA L. BONNES & another vs. SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS GROUP, INC. & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyBristol
CourtBristol Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date03/22/2012
Close Date03/22/2012

Parties

CounselNameType
John J. Gushue, EsquireBreana L. BonnesPlaintiff/Respondent
John J. Gushue, EsquireRyan A. MelloPlaintiff/Respondent
Southcoast Hospitals Group, Inc.Defendant
Marvin Z. Schreiber, M.D.Defendant
Linda L. Erickson, R.N.Defendant
Karen A. Vargas, R.N.Defendant
Kim Pina, R.N.Defendant
Christine D. McCleney, EsquireWarren Russell, M.D.Defendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
03/22/2012 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by Warren Russell, M.D.
03/22/2012 #2 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:The underlying case is a medical malpractice action involving several defendants. Trial is scheduled for May 1, 2012. By order dated February 29, 2012, a Superior Court judge allowed the plaintiffs' motion to add Warren Russell, M.D., as a defendant. Through a petition for interlocutory relief filed pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first para., Dr. Russell now seeks review of the judge's order. The relief that Dr. Russell principally requests (that I order the judge to deny the motion to amend) is outcome-determinative relief that is beyond my authority as single justice to grant. See Mass. R. App. P. 15(c). While it is true that I have the authority to allow Dr. Russell to pursue an interlocutory appeal to a panel of this court, his petition provides insufficient grounds for doing so (especially in light of the robust principles disfavoring interlocutory review and the fact that an appeal of the granting of a motion to amend would be subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard). I also note that, citing Mass. R. Civ. P. 42(b), the judge's order states that "[a] motion to separate the cases remains open to defendant." Petition denied. (Milkey, J.) *Notice/Attest/Kane, J.