Court Case Record Stella Gelt vs. VHS Acquisition Subsidiary No. 9, Inc. & others 2010-J-0566 UID(a6cd)

Stella Gelt vs. VHS Acquisition Subsidiary No. 9, Inc. & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2010-J-0566

Case Number2010-J-0566
Case TitleStella Gelt vs. VHS Acquisition Subsidiary No. 9, Inc. & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date12/16/2010
Close Date12/20/2010


Camille Sarrouf, Jr., EsquireStella GeltPlaintiff/Petitioner
Joanne Gulliford Hoban, EsquireVHS Acquisition Subsidiary No. 9Defendant/Respondent
Joanne Gulliford Hoban, EsquireJohn Doe, M.D.Defendant/Respondent
Joanne Gulliford Hoban, EsquireJane Doe, R.N.Defendant/Respondent
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
12/16/2010 #1 PETITION pursuant to G.L. c. 231, s. 118 with attach, filed by Stella Gelt.
12/20/2010 #2 ORDER: "The plaintiff has brought a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first paragraph, seeking review of the finding of a medical malpractice tribunal that her offer of proof contained insufficient evidence to raise a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry. For the following reasons, this court has typically ruled that a single justice lacks authority to review a determination by a three-member medical tribunal. First, G. L. c. 231, § 118, first paragraph, is restrictive. It embodies a departure from the longstanding Massachusetts policy disfavoring interlocutory piece meal appeals. It limits single justice review to an "interlocutory order of a trial court justice." A finding by a three-member medical practice tribunal pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 60B, does not constitute an interlocutory order by a trial court justice. Although a Superior Court judge sits as a member of the tribunal, that judge cannot impose a decision on the other members. See Kopysinski v. Aserkoff, 410 Mass. 410, 413-416 (1991). Secondly, we have not found any indication that the Legislature intended to authorize a single justice to substitute his or her view of the evidence for the collective view of the tribunal. The tribunal consists of a Superior Court judge, a litigator experienced in the medical questions presented, and a physician or other medical professional expert in the specialty or subject matter presented. In effect, it usually presents the application of expert opinion (the panel's) upon expert opinion (the plaintiff's proffer). Typically, also, the summary form of decision by the panel prevents detailed explanation of its reasoning and therefore the desirable degree of information for a single reviewing judge. These considerations lead me to decline review and relief in the present situation." (Sikora, J.). *Notice/Attest/Image.
12/21/2010 #3 OPPOSITION to Petition w/attach, filed by VHS Acquisition Subsidiary No. 9, Inc.