Part 1 – The Lineup
On August 29, 2014, the 44-year-old plaintiff was traveling westbound in a single lane of traffic on Pleasant Street in Lee, Massachusetts. She was operating a two-year-old Toyota minivan.
The plaintiff was preparing to take a left turn at the intersection with Meadow Street. She activated her left directional signal and safely slowed her vehicle to a complete stop, as she waited until eastbound traffic on Pleasant Street cleared so that it would be safe to take a left turn.
The 73-year-old defendant was traveling behind the plaintiff’s vehicle on Pleasant Street in the same lane. The defendant failed to safely slow and stop her vehicle behind the plaintiff’s vehicle and instead drove her vehicle directly into the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle, causing a collision. A witness traveling behind the defendant estimated her speed at 35 mph at the point of impact. The plaintiff’s vehicle was totaled.
Police and EMTs responded to the scene. At the scene, the plaintiff was complaining of numbness in her left arm and left leg. She was transported by ambulance to Berkshire Medical Center. The plaintiff was complaining of severe neck and upper back pain in the Emergency Department. She also complained of pain over her left hip, left upper extremity weakness and numbness, and left lower extremity weakness and numbness. The plaintiff underwent MRIs and CT scans of her chest, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine. She also underwent a CT scan of her head and an X-ray of her pelvis. The plaintiff was discharged and returned home, where she sought follow-up care for her injuries.
The plaintiff underwent neck surgery six months after the collision. The procedure was described by the plaintiff’s surgeon as an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. The plaintiff’s surgeon opined in a narrative report that the August 29, 2014, collision resulted in a herniated C5-6 disc, causing neck pain and left arm radiculopathy, and a herniated L5-S1 disc, causing lower back pain and leg radiculopathy. The plaintiff was also evaluated by a second physician for a disability impairment rating. That physician opined in a narrative report that the August 29, 2014, collision caused injuries to the plaintiff’s cervical spine and lumbar spine that are permanent. He further concluded that her spine surgery had failed.
Attorney Greg Connly of DOLAN CONNLY, P.C., filed a Complaint on behalf of the plaintiff against the defendant operator in the Berkshire Superior Court on December 23, 2016. Thereafter, the parties to the case completed discovery, including the production of numerous medical records and medical bills for the plaintiff totaling $91,480.47.
Even though the defendant’s negligent operation of her vehicle was clear, the plaintiff’s counsel and the insurance company for the defendant were unable to reach a settlement, so the case proceeded to trial.
The original trial date was delayed due to circumstances beyond the parties’ control.
Part 2 – Interception
The trial began in Berkshire Superior Court on August 31, 2022. Attorney Greg Connly represented the plaintiff.
At trial, the defendant stipulated that she had breached her duty of care to the plaintiff and caused the collision. The only questions left for the jury’s consideration were whether that breach had caused the injuries alleged by the plaintiff, and if so, the value of those damages.
In her defense, the defendant called Dr. Stephen Saris, a noted neurosurgeon, as her medical expert. Dr. Saris had personally examined the plaintiff prior to trial and performed a review of thousands of pages of her medical records. Dr. Saris prepared a lengthy report in which he concluded that: “plaintiff has a muscular soft tissue injury that is commonly seen after accidents of this sort. Similar to an ankle sprain, these are extremely painful in the short term, though they heal predictably in a timeframe of weeks. By July of 2015, she was therefore at a medical end result.”
From the outset of the trial, the judge had expressed his concerns to counsel for both parties that any reasonable jury faced with the evidence in this case would have to find that the August 29, 2014, collision caused injury to the plaintiff. The jury would only have to decide the extent of the injury and the plaintiff’s damages.
The jury was sent to deliberate at 1:08 p.m. on September 1, 2022, the Friday of Labor Day Weekend. Less than two hours later, the clerk received the verdict in open court at 2:47 p.m.
The jury concluded that the defendant’s negligence did not cause the plaintiff to sustain any injuries. No damages were awarded.
This verdict surprised everyone in the courtroom, including the judge.
Part 3 – Hail Mary Pass
Attorneys Greg Connly and Barbara Connly immediately researched, drafted, and filed a Motion for a New Trial with the judge who presided over the trial.
The factual basis for the Motion was that while both sides disputed the nature and extent of the injuries suffered as a result of the defendant’s negligence, it was admitted in the medical records and by the defendant’s expert at trial that the plaintiff was, in fact, injured.
These admissions were set out in the defense expert’s reports and were introduced into evidence and also reiterated by Dr. Stephen Saris in his trial testimony. No contradictory evidence was offered by the defense. Instead, the defendant’s counsel argued that much, but not all, of the treatment the plaintiff received in the weeks and months following the crash was not related to the crash.
At no time during the trial did the defendant’s counsel or the defendant’s expert state that the medical assessments done by the EMTs at the scene or by the medical providers at the hospital were unnecessary. Neither the defendant’s counsel nor the defendant’s expert stated that the initial medical treatment was unreasonable or unrelated to the collision.
The legal basis for the Motion was that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence and reflected the failure of the jury to exercise an honest and reasonable judgment in accordance with controlling principles of law.
In Massachusetts, judges are extremely hesitant to take verdicts away from a jury after a trial has concluded. The burden on a plaintiff filing such a Motion is significant. As a result, Motions for New Trials are rarely granted.
Attorney Connly, who grew up in the Doug Flutie, Boston College football era, aptly nicknamed his Motion for a New Trial the “Hail Mary Pass.” The defense attorney filed an opposition to the Motion, arguing that the jury verdict should stand.
On November 2, 2022, the trial judge issued comprehensive findings and granted the plaintiff a new trial. It was a “Gerard Phelan catch” of the Hail Mary Pass!
The judge found that the evidence established that the plaintiff incurred medical expenses by reason of first responders’ services, transport by ambulance to the hospital, evaluation in the Emergency Room, and other follow-up medical services that day. As the trial judge wrote, “no reasonable person could believe that the plaintiff did not incur medical expenses as a direct and proximate result of the accident. Second, no reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff endured no pain and suffering as a result of this accident. The witness most favorable to the defense, Dr. Stephen Saris, opined that the plaintiff had a muscular soft tissue injury that is commonly seen after accidents of this description.”
The trial judge further referenced conduct by the defense attorney. Included in these findings was a statement that the defense attorney misled the jury regarding who paid Dr. Stephen Saris $37,000.00 to work on the case. He inferred that the defendant herself paid the expert fees, when in fact, her insurance company had paid those fees. The judge noted that the defense attorney was attempting to gain sympathy from the jury for his elderly client.
In short, the judge found that the verdict for the defendant was against the weight of the evidence and that the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial.
Part 4 – Touchdown
On October 17, 2023, the second trial of the case began in Berkshire Superior Court. A final offer to settle the case was made on October 6, 2023, in the amount of $75,000.00. That offer was rejected by the plaintiff on the advice of Attorney Greg Connly. The same expert witnesses were used by the plaintiff and the defendant. Dr. Stephen Saris again took the stand as the defendant’s expert and disputed that the plaintiff had sustained anything more than a muscle sprain. Utilizing the medical records, Attorney Greg Connly challenged Dr. Saris’s interpretation of the plaintiff’s prior medical treatment. The cross-examination left Dr. Saris with no choice but to agree to far more than he disputed. This testimony was critical to the plaintiff’s case and left the door wide open for her medical experts to prove her injuries through their narrative reports.
At the conclusion of this second trial, Attorney Greg Connly secured a verdict for the plaintiff on October 18, 2023, in the amount of $300,000.00. With interest from the date of the filing of the Complaint, the total verdict was $454,608.84.
You might think this is where this case ends, but you would be wrong. The post-game analysis had just begun.
Part 5 – Challenging the Call
After the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant, now represented by new attorneys from the same law firm who specialized in appeals, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Interestingly, the defendant was not appealing the October 2023 trial or the amount awarded to the plaintiff. The defense was appealing the original trial judge’s granting of the Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial after the first trial. See Part 3.
The defense claimed that the trial judge should not have overruled the original jury verdict for the defendant. If the appeal was successful, the second trial and jury award of damages to the plaintiff would be void. The Appeals Court justices would hear arguments from both parties as to whether or not the plaintiff should have been granted a new trial.
Attorneys Greg Connly and Barbara Connly researched and wrote the “Hail Mary Pass – Take 2” more properly known, in legal terms, as the Appellant’s Brief. The issues were whether the trial judge abused his discretion in granting the plaintiff a new trial by removing the element of causation and/or shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.
In an interesting twist, the defense attorney argued that the jury did not have to believe its own expert witness, Dr. Stephen Saris, when he testified that the plaintiff sustained “some injury.” Dr. Saris disputed the extent of the injuries but did find the plaintiff sustained “injury” in the form of muscle strain. The defense claimed that the jury could have found Dr. Saris’ testimony not to be credible and dismissed it outright.
Considering Dr. Saris was paid $37,000.00 by the defense to testify in the first trial, and more for the second, it was an unusual position for a defense attorney to argue a jury did not have to believe its own expert.
Part 6 – Ruling on the Field Stands
Attorney Greg Connly argued in opposition to the defendant’s appeal before the Appeals Court Justices that the plaintiff was correctly granted a new trial. On August 27, 2025, the Appeals Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts affirmed the first trial judge’s ruling. As a result, the verdict and monetary award for the plaintiff at the second trial were validated.
The Appeals Court wrote in its findings that: “the judge should only set aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence when it is determined that the jury ‘failed to exercise an honest and reasonable judgment in accordance with the controlling principles of law.’” The Justices concluded that such an order for a new trial is only appropriate when the judge is convinced: that the jurors allowed themselves to be misled; were swept away by bias or prejudice; or for a combination of reasons, including a misunderstanding of applicable law, failed to come to a reasonable conclusion.
The Appeals Court determined that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion and that he explained his reasons for granting a new trial in his detailed findings in ruling on the motion. The judge recounted the concern he had from the outset of the trial that: “every reasonable jury, faced with the evidence in this case, would necessarily have to find that this rear-end accident….caused injury” to the plaintiff. The trial judge also expressed his view that Dr. Saris “did not contradict” the plaintiff’s testimony that the collision had caused her to be injured. The Appeals Court found that the record from the first trial provided substantial support for the trial judge’s decision to grant a new trial.
The defendant did not seek further appellate review.
In October of 2025, more than 11 years after the collision, the insurance company for the defendant paid the verdict in full, together with interest, in the amount of $541,023.27. The defendant’s insurance company also paid the plaintiff’s expenses associated with the two trials that totaled $17,614.81.
The plaintiff would later write a review of her experience with DOLAN CONNLY, P.C.:
For more than ten years, Greg Connly and Barbara Connly stood by their client through one of the most challenging legal battles imaginable. This case was filled with obstacles, unexpected setbacks, complex legal hurdles, and moments when the outcome seemed impossible. Yet, through every hardship, Greg and Barbara never wavered. They fought tirelessly, with unwavering determination and an unshakable belief in justice. Their persistence and resilience turned what felt like an endless uphill battle into a hard-earned victory.
This triumph is not just about winning a case; it is about the extraordinary commitment of two attorneys who refused to give up, no matter how difficult the road became.
Greg Connly and Barbara Connly exemplify what true advocacy looks like: strength in adversity, dedication through uncertainty, and an unrelenting pursuit of what is right. We are profoundly grateful for their tireless efforts and proud to share this story as a testament to the power of perseverance and integrity.
If you were injured due to someone else’s negligence, you can speak with our personal injury lawyers in Boston, Plymouth, Brockton, and across Massachusetts to understand your rights and legal options.