Legal Opinion

Mattapan Medical v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided June 28, 2000PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtin, J.

This is a G.L.c. 90, §34M action to recover Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) payments for medical services provided by the plaintiff to defendant Jean Pierre Gladimy who was injured while a passenger in a vehicle insured by defendant Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (“Metropolitan”). Summary judgment was entered for Metropolitan, and the plaintiff has appealed pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A., Rule 8A.

The plaintiff filed two small claims actions against Gladimy and Metropolitan3 which were transferred to the regular civil docket on Metropolitan’s motion, and…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  2. Madsen v. ErwinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  3. Peterson v. HopsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  4. Tetrault v. MahoneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
  5. Miller v. MooneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. 402 Rindge Corp. v. Ming TsaoMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2002
  2. Knight v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2004
  3. Cruickshank v. Commerce InsuranceMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API