The Suffolk Superior Court judge, while presiding over a medical malpractice case against Boston Children’s Hospital made it clear to the plaintiff’s lawyers that relying on general evidence and saying that “it’s in the medical records, figure it out” was insufficient and made their case thin, devoid of evidence, and short on relevant experts.
They needed to prove their case, every element of it, to show that they had a valid case against Boston Children’s Hospital and its team of doctors.
The plaintiff, 14-year old Justina Pelletier’s parents sued a renowned pediatric hospital and four caregivers over their daughter’s diagnosis and treatment in 2013 that resulted in her spending 10 months in a psychiatric unit in the custody of the state Department of Children and Families.
What miffed the judge was that the plaintiff’s lawyers used generic terms like “they” and “them” in their arguments, grouping every individual defendant together rather than making a specific case against each one of them.
As a result, the judge dismissed one part of the lawsuit’s claim that alleged violation of the Pelletiers’ civil rights by the paediatrician.