Massachusetts
Medical Malpractice Laws in Massachusetts (2026): Deadlines
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Massachusetts gives most patients three years to file a medical malpractice claim from the date the claim accrues, with a hard outer deadline of seven years from the negligent act under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 260, Section 4. Massachusetts also caps noneconomic (pain-and-suffering) damages at $500,000 under Chapter 231, Section 60H, but that cap has broad exceptions and often does not apply to severe injuries. Every malpractice case must also clear a screening tribunal before it can proceed. This guide explains those rules in plain English, but it is general information and not legal advice about your situation.
This page is part of our Medical Malpractice Laws by State series.
What is the deadline to sue for medical malpractice in Massachusetts?
Massachusetts sets a three-year statute of limitations for malpractice claims against physicians, surgeons, dentists, hospitals, and similar providers under Chapter 260, Section 4. The three years run from the date the cause of action accrues, and Massachusetts applies a discovery rule, so the clock generally starts when the patient knew or reasonably should have known of the harm and that it was caused by the provider's conduct. That discovery rule can extend the practical start date, but it does not override the outer deadline described below.
Because accrual depends on what you knew and when, the safest approach is to seek advice as soon as you suspect malpractice and preserve all medical records.
Is there a statute of repose in Massachusetts?
Yes. Chapter 260, Section 4 also contains a seven-year statute of repose, which provides that no malpractice action may be brought more than seven years after the act or omission that caused the injury. Unlike the limitations period, the repose deadline is not extended by the discovery rule, so it can bar a claim even before the patient knows of the harm. The one exception is for a foreign object left in the body, which is not subject to the seven-year repose.
How minors are treated
Massachusetts sets special deadlines for children's malpractice claims in M.G.L. Chapter 231, Section 60D (the general minority-tolling rule of Chapter 260, Section 7 does not control malpractice), and those claims have special outer limits. For a minor under the age of six, the action generally must be brought by the child's ninth birthday, and the seven-year statute of repose still applies, again except for a foreign object. Parents and guardians should not assume that minority tolling keeps the deadline open indefinitely.

Does Massachusetts cap medical malpractice damages?
Massachusetts caps noneconomic damages, which cover pain, suffering, loss of companionship, embarrassment, and similar non-financial harms, at $500,000 under Chapter 231, Section 60H. The figure has not been indexed for inflation. Crucially, the cap has broad exceptions: it does not apply if the factfinder determines there is a substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function, substantial disfigurement, or other special circumstances that would make the limit deprive the plaintiff of just compensation.
Because many serious malpractice injuries meet one of those exceptions, the $500,000 cap tends to bind only in less-catastrophic cases. Since whether the cap even applies depends on the injury, our Massachusetts medical malpractice calculator is a starting point, not a final word on either scenario. Economic damages, such as medical bills and lost earnings, are never capped. Separately, Chapter 231, Section 85K caps the tort liability of a charitable organization at $20,000 for claims arising from activities carried on to accomplish its charitable purposes directly, and then sets a separate, higher limit for this page's topic: a medical malpractice claim against a nonprofit organization providing health care may not exceed $100,000, exclusive of interest and costs. So the $100,000 figure is the medical-malpractice-specific limit, not the general charitable cap, and it is a distinct defendant-specific limit that sits alongside the noneconomic damages cap.
Do I need a tribunal or expert review in Massachusetts?
Yes. Every malpractice action against a health care provider must be reviewed by a medical malpractice tribunal under Chapter 231, Section 60B. The tribunal consists of a single justice of the Superior Court, a physician, and an attorney. At the hearing the plaintiff presents an offer of proof, and the tribunal decides whether the evidence, if properly substantiated, raises a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry, or whether the case is merely an unfortunate medical result.
If the tribunal finds against the plaintiff, the case can still proceed, but only if the plaintiff posts a bond. Because the offer of proof must show a departure from the standard of care and resulting harm, expert support is effectively required from the outset of a Massachusetts malpractice case.
Pre-suit notice in Massachusetts
Massachusetts also requires advance notice before suit. Under Chapter 231, Section 60L, a claimant generally must give the health care provider 182 days' written notice of intent to file a malpractice claim before filing the complaint. The notice period can be shortened to 90 days in certain circumstances, and there are limited situations where notice is not required, such as when a provider could not reasonably have been identified before filing.

Who can be held liable, and the standard of care
A Massachusetts malpractice claim can target physicians, hospitals, nurses, and other licensed providers whose care fell below the accepted professional standard. To win, a plaintiff generally must prove what a reasonably competent provider in the same field would have done, that the defendant departed from that standard, and that the departure caused the injury. Expert testimony is normally required to establish the standard of care and causation, which is why the tribunal's offer-of-proof stage is so important.
Comparative negligence in Massachusetts
Massachusetts follows modified comparative negligence under Chapter 231, Section 85. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced in proportion to his or her share of fault, but a plaintiff who is more than 50 percent at fault, meaning the plaintiff's negligence is greater than the combined negligence of the defendants, recovers nothing. This rule can matter where a provider argues the patient contributed to the harm.
Wrongful-death medical malpractice in Massachusetts
When negligent care causes a death, the claim is brought as a wrongful-death action under Chapter 229, Section 2, by the executor or administrator of the estate. That action generally must be commenced within three years of the death, or within three years of when the executor or administrator knew or reasonably should have known of the factual basis for the claim. The same tribunal and notice requirements that apply to malpractice claims generally apply here as well.

How to evaluate a possible claim
If you believe you or a loved one was harmed by medical care in Massachusetts, practical first steps include gathering complete medical records, noting key dates, and consulting an attorney well before the three-year limitations period and seven-year repose deadline close. Many malpractice attorneys offer a free initial consultation and work on a contingency fee, meaning they are paid a percentage of any recovery rather than upfront. No attorney or website can guarantee that a case will succeed or predict a dollar amount, because outcomes depend on the specific facts, the records, the tribunal stage, and expert review. Before either deadline closes, have a Massachusetts malpractice lawyer review the records in a free consultation (attorney advertising).
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline to sue for medical malpractice in Massachusetts?
Generally three years from when the claim accrues, using a discovery rule, under Chapter 260, Section 4. A separate seven-year statute of repose bars most claims more than seven years after the negligent act, except where a foreign object was left in the body. Act promptly, because both deadlines apply.
Does Massachusetts cap medical malpractice damages?
Massachusetts caps noneconomic (pain-and-suffering) damages at $500,000 under Chapter 231, Section 60H, but the cap does not apply if there is substantial or permanent impairment of a bodily function, substantial disfigurement, or other special circumstances. Because severe injuries usually meet an exception, the cap mainly binds in less-catastrophic cases. Economic damages are never capped.
Do I need an expert affidavit in Massachusetts?
Massachusetts does not use a standalone affidavit, but every malpractice case must go before a medical malpractice tribunal of a judge, a physician, and an attorney under Chapter 231, Section 60B, where the plaintiff presents an offer of proof. Expert support is effectively required to clear that stage.
How much is a Massachusetts medical malpractice case worth?
There is no standard figure. Value depends on the specific facts, the medical evidence, the injuries, and expert review. The $500,000 noneconomic cap applies only where no exception is met, and economic damages are uncapped. No attorney or website can guarantee an outcome or predict a dollar amount.
What is the medical malpractice tribunal in Massachusetts?
It is a screening panel of a Superior Court justice, a physician, and an attorney that reviews every malpractice case under Chapter 231, Section 60B. The plaintiff presents an offer of proof, and the tribunal decides whether the evidence raises a legitimate question of liability or shows only an unfortunate medical result.
Do I have to give notice before suing in Massachusetts?
Yes. Under Chapter 231, Section 60L, a claimant generally must give the provider 182 days' written notice of intent to file a malpractice claim before filing the complaint, with some exceptions and a shortened 90-day period in certain situations.
What if I share some of the fault in Massachusetts?
Massachusetts uses modified comparative negligence under Chapter 231, Section 85. Your recovery is reduced by your share of fault, and you recover nothing if your negligence is greater than the combined negligence of the defendants.
Is this page legal advice?
No. This is general legal information about Massachusetts medical malpractice law, not legal advice. Deadlines, caps, and outcomes are state-specific and fact-dependent, so you should consult a licensed Massachusetts attorney about your own situation.
Updates
Corrected the description of the Massachusetts charitable liability cap: G.L. c. 231, Section 85K limits charitable-activity tort liability to $20,000 generally and sets $100,000 as a separate limit specific to medical malpractice claims against a nonprofit health care organization.
Corrected the statute cited for Massachusetts' children's malpractice deadlines (M.G.L. c.231 s.60D).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 260
§ 4Certain tort or contract actions for malpractice, error or mistakeIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Section 4. Actions of contract or tort for malpractice, error or mistake against attorneys, certified public accountants and public accountants, actions for assault and battery, false imprisonment, slander, libel, actions against sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, constables or assignees in insolvency for the taking or conversion of personal property, actions of tort for injuries to the person against counties, cities and towns, and actions of contract or tort for malpractice, error or mistake against hairdressers, operators and shops registered under sections eighty-seven T to eighty-seven JJ, inclusive of chapter one hundred and twelve, actions of tort for bodily injuries or for death the payment of judgments in which is required to be secured by chapter ninety and also actions of tort for bodily injuries or for death or for damage to property against officers and employees of the commonwealth, and of any county, city or town, arising out of the operation of motor or other vehicles owned by the commonwealth, including those under the control of said commission, or by any such county, city or town, suits by judgment creditors in such actions of tort under section one hundred and thirteen…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-07 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 218 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Chace v. Curran (Massachusetts Appeals Court 2008, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258)“…plicable to minors and adults. See G. L. c. 231, § 60D, and G. L. c. 260, § 4. The plaintiffs’ counts alleging fraudu…”
- Franklin v. Albert (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1980, 381 Mass. 611)“…e of action for medical malpractice does not “accrue” under G. L. c. 260, § 4, until a patient learns, or reasonably…”
- Gaudette v. Webb (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1972, 362 Mass. 60)“…parately. 1. Conscious Suffering. Under G. L. c. 260, § 4, as amended through St. 1965, c. 302, “…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Defamation Laws: Libel & Slander (2026), Massachusetts Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 231
§ 60HLimitation of damages for pain and sufferingIn force
Section 60H. In any action for malpractice, negligence, error, omission, mistake or the unauthorized rendering of professional services, other than actions brought under section two of chapter two hundred and twenty-nine, against a provider of health care, the court shall instruct the jury that in the event they find the defendant liable, they shall not award the plaintiff more than five hundred thousand dollars for pain and suffering, loss of companionship, embarrassment and other items of general damages unless the jury determines that there is a substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function or substantial disfigurement, or other special circumstances in the case which warrant a finding that imposition of such a limitation would deprive the plaintiff of just compensation for the injuries sustained. In any such action which is tried without a jury, the court shall not award the plaintiff more than five hundred thousand dollars for pain and suffering, loss of companionship, embarrassment and other items of general damages unless the aforesaid findings are made specially by the court and stated separately in the judgment entered by the court.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2011
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Darviris v. Petros (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2004, 442 Mass. 274)“…c. 231, § 60G; and limits recovery for pain and suffering, G. L. c. 231, § 60H. The act also provides that “[a]ctions…”
- Sisson v. Lhowe (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2011, 460 Mass. 705)“…laim are differentiated in the statutory scheme, see, e.g., G. L. c. 231, § 60H (placing cap on pain and suffering for…”
- Morgan v. Laboratory Corp. of America (Massachusetts Appeals Court 2006, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 816)“…Ct. 173 , 180 n.16 (2003). *824 b. Instructions under G. L. c. 231, § 60H. Lab Corp. claims that the trial judge…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 60BMalpractice actions against providers of health care; tribunalIn force
Section 60B. Every action for malpractice, error or mistake against a provider of health care shall be heard by a tribunal consisting of a single justice of the superior court, a physician licensed to practice medicine in the commonwealth under the provisions of section two of chapter one hundred and twelve and an attorney authorized to practice law in the commonwealth, at which hearing the plaintiff shall present an offer of proof and said tribunal shall determine if the evidence presented if properly substantiated is sufficient to raise a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry or whether the plaintiff's case is merely an unfortunate medical result. Said physician shall be selected by the single justice from a list submitted by the Massachusetts Medical Society representing the field of medicine in which the alleged injury occurred and licensed to practice medicine and surgery in the commonwealth under the provisions of section two of chapter one hundred and twelve.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 207 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Harnish v. Children's Hospital Medical Center (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1982, 387 Mass. 152)“…med. A medical malpractice tribunal, convened pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 60B, concluded that the plaintiff’s offer o…”
- Paro v. Longwood Hospital (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1977, 373 Mass. 645)“…rst impression, 1 constitutional challenges to G. L. c. 231, § 60B, which establishes a procedure for the…”
- Beeler v. Downey (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1982, 387 Mass. 609)“…t the medical malpractice tribunal hearing held pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 60B, the plaintiff submitted an offer of pr…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 60LWritten notice requirement for actions against health care providers as defined in seventh paragraph of Sec. 60B; time for filing; exceptions; contents; provider's access to medical records; written responseIn force
Section 60L. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not commence an action against a provider of health care as defined in the seventh paragraph of section 60B unless the person has given the health care provider 182 days written notice before the action is commenced. (b) The notice of intent to file a claim required under subsection (a) shall be mailed to the last known professional business address or residential address of the health care provider who is the subject of the claim. (c) The 182–day notice period in subsection (a) shall be shortened to 90 days if: (1) the claimant has previously filed the 182–day notice required against another health care provider involved in the claim; or (2) the claimant has filed a complaint and commenced an action alleging medical malpractice against any health care provider involved in the claim.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- EMILY LANE v. WINCHESTER HOSPITAL & another. (Massachusetts Appeals Court 2022, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 74)“…1. Background. This matter was initiated by Emily Lane's G. L. c. 231, § 60L, letter to the hospital stating her int…”
- Arsenault v. Bhattacharya (Massachusetts Appeals Court 2016, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 804)“…roto Bhattacharya, of her intention to sue, as required by G. L. c. 231, § 60L. See St. 2012, c. 224, § 221 ("An…”
- Nolet v. Armstrong (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2016, 197 F. Supp. 3d 298)“…e requirements for medical malpractice actions contained in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 60L. A. Failure to State a Claim For th…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 85Comparative negligence; limited effect of contributory negligence as defenseIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
Section 85. Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in any action by any person or legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence was not greater than the total amount of negligence attributable to the person or persons against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person for whose injury, damage or death recovery is made. In determining by what amount the plaintiff's damages shall be diminished in such a case, the negligence of each plaintiff shall be compared to the total negligence of all persons against whom recovery is sought. The combined total of the plaintiff's negligence taken together with all of the negligence of all defendants shall equal one hundred per cent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-10 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 294 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Poirier v. Town of Plymouth (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1978, 374 Mass. 206)“…e and the abolition of the defense of assumption of risk by G. L. c. 231, § 85, the Legislature has moved in the direc…”
- O'Sullivan v. Shaw (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2000, 431 Mass. 201)“…mplicitly. abolished by the comparative negligence statute, G. L. c. 231, § 85, as appearing in St. 1973, c. 1123, § 1…”
- Correia v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1983, 388 Mass. 342)“…atute to the negligence count, i.e., that it should treat M.G.L. c. 231, § 85, as a comparative ‘fault’ statute, or,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Massachusetts Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Massachusetts Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim
§ 60DClaim by minor against provider of health care; limitationsIn force
Section 60D. Notwithstanding the provisions of section seven of chapter two hundred and sixty, any claim by a minor against a health care provider stemming from professional services or health care rendered, whether in contract or tort, based on an alleged act, omission or neglect shall be commenced within three years from the date the cause of action accrues, except that a minor under the full age of six years shall have until his ninth birthday in which the action may be commenced, but in no event shall any such action be commenced more than seven years after occurrence of the act or omission which is the alleged cause of the injury upon which such action is based except where the action is based upon the leaving of a foreign object in the body.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 38 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Chace v. Curran (Massachusetts Appeals Court 2008, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258)“…ice statutes of repose applicable to minors and adults. See G. L. c. 231, § 60D, and G. L. c. 260, § 4. The plaintiffs’…”
- McGuinness v. Cotter (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1992, 412 Mass. 617)“…e, in the amended version of the statute at issue here. See G. L. c. 231, § 60D, as amended by St. 1986, c. 351, § 23 (…”
- Nett v. Bellucci (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2002, 437 Mass. 630)“…s against him were barred by the statutes of repose. 5 See G. L. c. 231, § 60D; G. L. c. 260, § 4. Because he had perf…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 85KLimitation of tort liability of certain charitable organizations; liability of directors, officers or trustees of educational institutionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Section 85K. It shall not constitute a defense to any cause of action based on tort brought against a corporation, trustees of a trust, or members of an association that said corporation, trust, or association is or at the time the cause of action arose was a charity; provided, that if the tort was committed in the course of any activity carried on to accomplish directly the charitable purposes of such corporation, trust, or association, liability in any such cause of action shall not exceed the sum of twenty thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs; and provided further, that in the context of medical malpractice claims against a nonprofit organization providing health care, such cause of action shall not exceed the sum of $100,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the liability of charitable corporations, the trustees of charitable trusts, and the members of charitable associations shall not be subject to the limitations set forth in this section if the tort was committed in the course of activities primarily commercial in character even though carried on to obtain revenue to be used for charitable purposes.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 98 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mullins v. Pine Manor College (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1983, 389 Mass. 47)“…lege and Person in the amount of $175,000. [2] Pursuant to G.L.c. 231, § 85K, the trial judge reduced the amount of…”
- Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston University (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1997, 425 Mass. 1)“…gainst charitable entities for tort liability, contained in G. L. c. 231, § 85K, does not apply to liability under G. L…”
- Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2005, 443 Mass. 367)“…on filed by Dana-Farber requesting that the charitable cap, G. L. c. 231, § 85K, be applied to the judgment against it;…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 229
§ 2Wrongful death; damagesIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
Section 2. A person who (1) by his negligence causes the death of a person, or (2) by willful, wanton or reckless act causes the death of a person under such circumstances that the deceased could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted, or (3) operates a common carrier of passengers and by his negligence causes the death of a passenger, or (4) operates a common carrier of passengers and by his willful, wanton or reckless act causes the death of a passenger under such circumstances that the deceased could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted, or (5) is responsible for a breach of warranty arising under Article 2 of chapter one hundred and six which results in injury to a person that causes death, shall be liable in damages in the amount of: (1) the fair monetary value of the decedent to the persons entitled to receive the damages recovered, as provided in section one, including but not limited to compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice of the decedent to the persons entitled to the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 283 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ferriter v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1980, 381 Mass. 507)“…f the reasonably expected ... society ... of the decedent." G.L.c. 229, § 2, as appearing in St. 1973, c. 699, § 1.…”
- Gaudette v. Webb (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1972, 362 Mass. 60)“…ul death statute in effect at the time of Gaudette’s death, G. L. c. 229, § 2, as appearing in St. 1958, c. 238, § 1,…”
- Gallant v. Worcester (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1981, 383 Mass. 707)“…mental death liability mere surplusage after 1978. In 1979, G.L.c. 229, § 2, was amended to update the statute of l…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Motorcycle Accident Laws (2026): Deadlines, Punitive Damages in Massachusetts: Statute-Only Rule (2026), Truck Accident Laws in Massachusetts (2026): Deadlines & Liability
Sources and References
- M.G.L. c. 260 Section 4 (3-year malpractice limitations period; 7-year statute of repose; foreign-object exception)(malegislature.gov).gov
- M.G.L. c. 231 Section 60H ($500,000 noneconomic damages cap with exceptions)(malegislature.gov).gov
- M.G.L. c. 231 Section 60B (medical malpractice tribunal; offer of proof)(malegislature.gov).gov
- M.G.L. c. 231 Section 60L (182-day notice of intent to sue)(malegislature.gov).gov
- M.G.L. c. 231 Section 85 (modified comparative negligence)(malegislature.gov).gov
- M.G.L. c. 229 Section 2 (wrongful death; 3-year limitations period)(malegislature.gov).gov
- Massachusetts Superior Court Rule 73 (medical malpractice cases; tribunal procedure)(mass.gov).gov
- M.G.L. c.231 s.60D (minors medical malpractice limitations)(malegislature.gov).gov
- M.G.L. c. 231 Section 85K (charitable tort liability limited to $20,000; $100,000 limit for medical malpractice claims against a nonprofit health care organization)(malegislature.gov)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.