Organized by Attorney
A Google search for “Martica” on Westlaw reveals that she has represented clients in over 50 cases that have gone to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and resulted in decisions that are now part of Maine jurisprudence. These cases reflect a wide-ranging litigation practice with a specialty in insurance coverage. More than half of the decisions involve significant coverage issues. Most recently, she represented a legal malpractice insurer in a case involving misrepresentations on an application for coverage. The jury found that in applying for malpractice coverage the insured attorney made material misrepresentations of fact concerning his professional disciplinary history. The policy was voided on the basis of these findings.
Martica is currently defending toxic exposure cases involving both carbon monoxide and lead paint. The plaintiffs in both cases claim that they have permanent brain damage as a result of the exposure. In the CO case, the plaintiff had to be resuscitated at the scene, and the CO level in her apartment and in her bloodstream was extremely high. Nonetheless, she rapidly improved after being placed on oxygen (including a hyperbaric chamber). In the lead paint case, the fact of the minor plaintiffs’ exposure to elevated levels of lead in an older Maine residence is documented by test results.
In both cases, the defense disputes that the exposure caused lasting cognitive injuries. Brain MRIs show no evidence of brain damage. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are primarily relying on neuropsychological testing, where the person being tested can deliberately craft his or her responses so as to manipulate the results. Another weakness is that there is no pre-exposure testing for comparison purposes. In the pending cases they are interpreted by the neuropsych expert as “consistent with” carbon monoxide poisoning and lead exposure. “Consistent with” is not legally sufficient to prove causation; hence Martica hopes to prevail on summary judgment.
Along with Deb Buccina, Martica recently secured a $760,000 jury award for a plaintiff who slipped on black ice on the front steps of her apartment building and sustained a broken leg and broken shoulder bone. She recently obtained a verdict for a defendant trucking company in a case involving serious injuries sustained by a motorcyclist. The jury found that the truck driver was not negligent. She also recently represented a gentleman who had been the victim of a foreclosure scam—the jury awarded both compensatory and punitive damages.
Martica has represented plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases involving hospital acquired infection, breast cancer, and a bowel perforation. These cases have resulted in favorable out-of-court settlements.
In addition to trying cases, Martica serves as a mediator and/or arbitrator in divorce cases. She uses a common-sense approach to dispute resolution that allows clients to “get the job done” without wasting time and money.
Alison Denham represented the defendant/employer, prevailing on appeal in a case of interest to Maine’s workers’ compensation community This was a case of first impression, construing the “loss of industrial use” provision of the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act. Claims under section 212(2)(G) of the Act have been rare since this provision was enacted as part of the 1992 Act, but are on the rise. Such awards are extraordinarily large, ranging from approximately $320,000.00 for an average earner, to $459,264.00 for a worker entitled to the current maximum rate. Section 212(2) creates a conclusive presumption and provides for awards of 800 weeks benefits for certain catastrophic injuries, such as multiple amputations or total loss of sight. At issue here was subsection (G) which allows such awards for “permanent and total loss of industrial use of both legs, hands, or arms, or one leg and one arm.
The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded 800 weeks of benefits to a 79 year old retiree based on carpal tunnel syndrome, which had been significantly complicated by degenerative aging processes. Her original claim for his injury had been denied by the Board in 2000, on the grounds that her employer had continuously made suitable light work available to her, which she declined when she opted to retire at age 70. A different hearing officer concluded in a second round of litigation in 2006, that retirement and the viable job offer were irrelevant as defenses to a claim under Section 212(2)(G.)
The Employer appealed directly to the Maine Supreme Court sitting as the Law Court. In its original opinion, the Court vacated the entire award of benefits, setting important legal precedent in several respects. The Court held that the stricter standard of Section 223, (the retirement provision of the Act) trumped the more liberal standard of Section 212(2)(G.) “The plain language of the standard of disability set forth in section 223 [retirement provision] demonstrates that the Legislature intended that it ‘supersede[ ] other applicable standards used to determine disability under the Act, including section 212(2)(G).” It also held that a claim for total permanent loss of industrial use requires proof of loss of earning capacity, and can be defeated by proof of available/suitable work.
The employee sought reconsideration, joined at that late date by the AFL-CIO and a law firm seeking to intervene as amici curiae. The Court revised its original opinion slightly, eliminating dicta concerning the employee’s interest in, or intention, to work. It affirmed its original decision in all other respects. Most unusually, the employee’s attorney sought reconsideration a second time. This request was summarily denied by the Court.
Saucier v. Nichols Portland, et al., Decision No. 2000 ME 132; decided September 18, 2007; revised on October 25, 2007; second motion for reconsideration denied November 26, 2007.
An accomplished trial lawyer, Deb Buccina began developing her courtroom skills during her years as a prosecutor from 1981- 1985. She has refined those skills in the following 25 years of her practice in civil litigation. She combines litigation skills and solid common sense to her case handling. In her early years at the firm she obtained a defense verdict in favor of a national beer company in a lawsuit alleging a foreign object in a beer bottle. Deb has obtained jury verdicts in favor of her clients in numerous auto accident cases in which negligence has been alleged against her clients arising from rear end collisions, improper left hand turns, failure to yield the right of way and slipping on icy roadways. In her practice representing injured plaintiffs she has obtained recovery for a family exposed to carbon monoxide poisoning and was awarded a verdict of one million dollars reduced to $760,000 for comparative negligence for a plaintiff who was seriously injured after slipping on ice leaving her apartment.
