Boston personal injury firm Crowe & Mulvey sued by former client for alleged malpractice


39 United States governors issued sleep apnea awareness proclamations, many of which mention Evans’ mother by name. These proclamations can be viewed at

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals said in an Oorder that the company did not raise any objection during the trial on the question of what would be a cause of appeal. The firm also failed to conduct a conflict check on the judge, Lawrence Supreme Court Justice Salim R. Tabit, who was married to a physician with at least admitting privileges at the same hospital as ‘Evans continued.

Evans named Florence Careya lawyer from the firm and another lawyer, as well as the firm itself.

“During the trial, my own attorney said the going rate for a 62-year-old, my mother, was $750,000“, said Evans. “I was sickened.”

The Massachusetts Bar Association issued a warning against the company after they or they posted a video of Evans on YouTube praising the company, but only after Evans gave notice of his intention to sue and never before. YouTube, citing Evans’ copyright infringement, immediately removed the video. Evans maintains that he only realized legal malpractice had occurred after Evans created a video about the company. The company never uploaded the video until Evans informed the company that he intended to sue for malpractice.

“This company represented me and did not depose any of my witnesses or call any of them to testify,” Evans said. “Then they post a video of me congratulating them after I informed the law firm that I intended to sue, but never before. I appreciate that the Massachusetts Bar sent them a letter of d warning and that YouTube confirmed their copyright infringement by deleting the video. In my opinion, this company is seeking settlement and was totally unprepared for the lawsuit.”

Evans is represented by Massachusetts lawyer Richard Chambers.

Evans also claims the company did not file any of his witnesses, including his father, a former police chief, and did not file a notice of appeal to preserve his rights. The company also never asked to withdraw from the case or received court permission to Lawrence, Massachusetts To do so.

“The firm did not discover that the judge was related to the defendants, did not object to when they should have done so during the trial, did not file post-verdict motions and other matters that now require me to pursue what I am in court,” says Evans.

by Evans the original case he is currently suing Crowe & Mulvey for is now before the United States Supreme Court. Evans’ appeal regarding the judge will be heard by the United States Supreme Court and will be presented at a conference on May 19and2022. “If I lose the appeal, I will file a motion for a rehearing. I lost my mother, it wasn’t a small claims case and that’s how I think Crowe and Mulvey did it. treaty.”

“I see opinions posted online by other companies on their blogs that know absolutely nothing about what I’m alleging in the case. They know nothing about it and spew opinions knowing nothing,” Evans said. about an item he reviewed by a company unrelated to the case.

“That’s why I decided it was my turn to clearly explain what this company had done or, in my case, hadn’t done, and the retaliatory measures they had taken when they knew I was going to file a malpractice suit. What happened to my mom was the worst experience of my life,” Evans concludes.

“My father, a former police chief, was on my witness list and heard co-defendant Dr. Ronald Marvin say “Probably”, when my dad asked if my mom had been watched, would that have made a difference. Crowe & Mulvey never even filed it despite telling me they would, and never called my father as a rebuttal witness to Marvin’s testimony. As in the original case, I will pursue this case as far as I must and justice will be served,” Evans said.

Evans said comments by Edward S. Cheng, professional liability attorney at Sherin and Lodgen in Bostonclaiming that he, as a non-party to all cases “sees difficult navigation for Evans in his case against Crowe & Mulvey”, is ridiculous.

“Who is Ed Cheng? I love how these lawyers who have nothing to do with the case seek to get their name out there by commenting on trial cases they have never been involved in and don’t know all the details. It’s a ridiculous and sad attempt to get attention in legal publications, really,” says Evans.

Evans was deposed on May 6and2022, and depositions are scheduled for June 1, 2022 with Evans’ father and the accused Crowe & Mulvey Florence Carey.

“I’m not the first client to sue Crowe & Mulvey,” says Evans. “In my opinion, it’s an early settlement business and not a trial business. It’s my mother, and contrary to what Florence Carey told me and my friend there was no “going rate” for my mother.

“It’s about justice, and it comes in many forms,” ​​Evans says. A nurse, Anne-Marie Medeof the Sainte-Famille Hospital in Methuen (Massachusetts)was found negligent at trial by the jury in the Essex County Superior Court case in Lawrence, Massachusetts.

Case References: Suffolk County Superior Court – Evans vs. Crowe and Mulvey – Civil action 2184CV01883

Information on the original case of action: Evans v. Marvin, and al – Essex County Superior Court, Lawrence, Massachusetts – File number 1577CV00569

U.S. Supreme Court – Writ of Certiorari, Case Number 21-1257 – Evans v. Dr. Ronald MarvinNurse Anne Marie Mede, Holy Family Hospital, Steward Health, et al

References to this case can be viewed at

THE SOURCE Brian Evans


About Author

Comments are closed.