Court Case Record Scott R. Barrow vs. Scott Picone & others 2011-J-0041 UID(9160)

Scott R. Barrow vs. Scott Picone & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0041

Case Number2011-J-0041
Case TitleScott R. Barrow vs. Scott Picone & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtEssex Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date01/31/2011
Close Date02/04/2011


David J. Hoey, Esquire Robert E. Curtis, Jr., EsquireScott R. BarrowPlaintiff/Petitioner
Peter C. Knight, EsquireScott PiconeDefendant/Respondent
Peter C. Knight, EsquireDartmouth House Nursing Home IncDefendant/Respondent
Peter C. Knight, EsquireSamantha Duggan LPNDefendant/Respondent
Peter C. Knight, EsquireEssex Group Management CorpDefendant/Respondent
Peter C. Knight, EsquireSusan Plante LPNDefendant/Respondent
Peter C. Knight, EsquireBarbara Silva RNDefendant/Respondent
Peter C. Knight, EsquireLucy SilveiraDefendant/Respondent
Laura LundquistDefendant/Respondent
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
01/31/2011 #1 PETITION purs to GLc 231, s. 118 w/attach, filed by Scott R. Barrow.
02/04/2011 #2 RE#1: The petition is DENIED. On August 25, 2010, the motion judge entered an order compelling arbitration and staying proceedings until November 23, 2010, so that arbitration could occur. The plaintiff did nothing until November 19, when, after the defendants filed an order seeking to compel compliance with the August 25 order, it filed motions for reconsideration, for discovery and other allied matters. In my view the operative order in this case is the order of August 25, 2010, any interrogatory of which had to be sought before September 24, 2010. See G.L. C. 231, § 118 (first para.). I find no abuse of discretion in the motion judge's refusal to reconsider the August 25 order particularly in view of the fact that the decedent's son, who now claims he had no authority to sign any arbitration agreement, signed the agreement when his mother was admitted to the facility beneath a recitation that he was "a person duly authorized by the Resident, which shall include a responsible party, Health Care Proxy, Power of Attorney or Legal Guardian, or otherwise to execute this agreement and accept its terms." In summarily deciding the arbitrability issue, see G.L. c. 251, § 2(a), the judge was clearly entitled to reject his current contention that he had no such authority (McHugh, J.). Notice/attest/Cornetta, J.
02/04/2011 #3 Certificate of Service for petition and memorandum, filed by Scott R. Barrow.
02/08/2011 Motion to reconsider paper #1 filed by Scott R. Barrow.
02/10/2011 RE#3: Denied (McHugh, J.). Notice/attest/Cornetta, J.