Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") refused to review the Massachusetts Appellate Court's ("Appeals Court") decision upholding the trial court's granting of a motion to dismiss filed by Boyle, Morrissey and Campo, P.C. ("BMC") on behalf of the defendants in Ramon Gonzalez, et al. v. Dec-Tam Corporation, et al., MICV2006-02871, in an alleged brain injury case.
 
In the underlying case, the Plaintiff alleged that he fell off staging at a construction site located in Connecticut.  As a result of the fall, the Plaintiff alleged that he suffered from serious neck, back, leg and head injuries.  The Plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, filed suit in Massachusetts on behalf of himself and his minor children.    
 
Zurich North America retained BMC to defend that case on behalf of all defendants.  BMC immediately filed a motion to dismiss arguing, for the first time in Massachusetts, that although the Plaintiff filed his lawsuit within Connecticut's two-year statute of limitations, he failed to serve the complaint within the limitations period, as required by an unusual Connecticut procedure.  Utilizing choice-of-law principles articulated in another case argued by BMC, Nierman v. Hyatt Corp., 441 Mass. 693 (2004), we argued that the failure to comply with the service requirement required dismissal.  The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.
 
The Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Court and retained former Massachusetts Appeals Court Justice Mel Greenberg to author and argue the appeal.  The Appeals Court agreed with BMC's position in rejecting Justice Greenberg's arguments and upheld the trial court.  The Plaintiff sought further appellate review from the SJC, which BMC opposed.  The SJC has denied the Plaintiff's application for further appellate review.
 
The underlying matter and the appeal were handled by Anthony M. Campo, Esq. and Nicholas B. Kosiavelon, Esq. of BMC's Boston Office.