Massachusetts Supreme Court weighs negligence time limit: 8 things to know

A case under review by the Massachusetts Supreme Court will decide whether a physician can be held liable for failing to run certain tests a decade prior to a patient developing cardiac disease, Law.com reported Dec. 5.

Here are eight things to know about the case:

1. On Dec. 4, attorney Bruce Bierhans argued that Barnstable (Mass.) County Superior Court Judge Gregg Pasquale, incorrectly ruled against his client, plaintiff Lorraine Bellmar, who brought the lawsuit against Robert Moore, MD, following her husband's death in 2016. 

2. An autopsy revealed that 62-year-old Harry Bellmar, the patient, had an enlarged heart and that his death was the result of a cardiac arrhythmia due to cardiomyopathy with cardiomegaly in settings of atherosclerosis.  

3. In 2006, Mr. Bellmar had an abnormal electrocardiogram that indicated "possible ectopic atrial rhythm." However, Dr. Moore did not order follow-up treatment or testing and did not take any preventative measures in the dozens of visits with Mr. Bellmar through 2015. 

4. According to the report, Mr. Bellmar had additional risk factors, including being overweight, hypertensive and having sleep apnea. Mr. Bierhans cite  an expert who said that if the patient had been properly evaluated, he may have undergone appropriate treatment to prevent his death. 

5. The physician's attorney, Stephen O'Shea, argued that the plaintiff failed to distinguish any malpractice in the appointments Dr. Moore had with Mr. Bellmar through 2015. 

6. He further argued that the plaintiff's allegations were consistently tied to the 2006 EKG test, which was beyond the seven-year statute of limitations.

7. Associate Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian said that it "appeared the defense proposed a standard that a doctor would be able to ignore a patient's prior history." The physician relied on the court's 2005 opinion in Rudenauer v. Zafiropoulos and the Massachusetts Appellate Court's 2022 ruling in Moran v. Benson, which involved physicians who failed to diagnose after relevant testing was completed. 

8. Justice Wollohojian also asked whether a patient could bring a claim against a new provider if the circumstances were the same within the statutory time frame, to which Mr. O'Shea agreed. 

Copyright © 2025 Becker's Healthcare. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Cookie Policy. Linking and Reprinting Policy.


You can unsubscribe from these communications at any time. For more information, please review our Privacy Policy.
 

Articles We Think You'll Like