Megan Grew  Pimentel

Megan Grew Pimentel

Partner
Boston, MAPhone: 617.423.6674Email: mpimentel@adlercohen.com
Portsmouth, NHPhone: 603-431-0582  
Megan Grew  Pimentel

Megan Grew Pimentel

Partner

Boston, MA617.423.6674 and Portsmouth, NH603-431-0582

mpimentel@adlercohen.com |
Overview

Megan Grew Pimentel is an experienced civil litigation trial attorney, having successfully defended clients in Massachusetts Courts.  Megan focuses her practice on the representation of healthcare professionals and institutions in medical malpractice actions and before the various Boards of Registration that govern these professionals.  Her practice also includes the defense of individuals and businesses in civil actions involving product liability and other personal injury matters.

Awards & Recognition

  • In 2018 and 2019, Megan was selected, based on a vote of licensed attorneys in Massachusetts and a review by an independent blue ribbon panel, as a "Super Lawyer," as published annually in Boston Magazine and New England Super Lawyers. Previously, in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2015. and 2016, Megan was selected as a "Rising Star."

Publications

  • The Joint UNEP/OCHA Environmental Unit: A Global Environmental Response Team", 25 Suffolk Transnational Law Journal, Summer, 2002

Articles/Newsletters

In addition, Megan has authored the following articles for the Massachusetts Medical Society’s Legal Access Plan Newsletter, The Legal Advisor:

  • The Online Prescription Monitoring Program: A New Tool in the Fight Against Prescription Drug Abuse. July 2015
  • Liability for Attending Physicians and Resident. March 2014
  • Not All Publicity Is Good Publicity. July 2013
  • Disclosure and Apology: When Words Can Be Used As Weapons. October 2012
Experience


Recent successful results Megan has contributed to obtaining on behalf of her clients, and other experience, include the following:

In February 2020, Ellen Epstein Cohen and Megan Grew Pimentel were very gratified to obtain a defense verdict on behalf of all their clients in the highly publicized case of Justina Pelletier, et al. v. Boston Children’s Hospital, et al. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat her complex condition, and that as a result she was subjected to a very lengthy hospitalization causing post-traumatic stress disorder and interference with the parent/child relationship, as well as violation of their civil rights related to the filing of a mandated report of suspected abuse or neglect. In addition to suing the Hospital, the plaintiffs brought claims against child and adolescent specialists in neurology, psychology and psychiatry, as well as a child abuse pediatrician. Further complicating the situation was the fact that the Suffolk County Juvenile Court ordered the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) to take legal custody of the child and to direct her care and treatment, as well as visitation and contact with her family, throughout her hospital admission.

The plaintiffs intentionally created a media storm of attention at the time of the hospital treatment. At that time, the central dispute was whether the patient had mitochondrial disease and whether that was properly considered in her evaluation and treatment. By the time of trial seven years later, there was very little discussion about mitochondrial disease, and the focus had shifted to whether there had been a good faith basis to file a mandated report of suspected child abuse and neglect, a so called “51A report.” There was considerable testimony regarding the child’s clearly documented history of prior over-medicalization by numerous providers at different institutions over state lines for many years by her parents, and questions about medical child abuse. The testimony made clear, however, the reason the 51A report was filed was not based on a history of questioned abuse, but rather because of the very real and present risk of medical neglect that would have resulted from the parents’ attempt to remove the child from hospital level of care in the extremely dysfunctional and debilitated condition in which she had been brought to the Hospital.

A jury trial was held in the Suffolk Superior Court over the course of nearly six weeks from January 2020 through February 2020, during which supportive experts in mitochondrial disorders, child and adolescent psychiatry, and child abuse pediatrics testified on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiffs experts consisted of a philosopher/bioethicist, a forensic psychologist, a retired E.R. physician and one of the patient’s prior treating doctors. At the conclusion of trial, on February 19, 2020, after only 6 hours, the jury returned a verdict fully in favor of all defendants on all claims, finding that the plaintiffs had not proven any of their claims; that is, that none of the defendants had been negligent in their care and treatment of the minor patient and that they had not violated the civil rights of the plaintiffs.

The jury’s verdict firmly vindicated the very talented and dedicated team of providers at Boston Children’s Hospital, each of whom worked so hard during this long hospital admission for the best interest of their patient under extremely challenging circumstances and pressures. In addition, the verdict had broader significance with regard to its effect on the critical role of mandated reporters. This trial emphasized that those who work with children must file a 51A report if they have good faith basis to suspect child abuse or neglect (physical, sexual or medical abuse or neglect), and that the immunity conferred on them by statute for so filing will protect them from unfounded claims such as those asserted in this case.

If a provider has any question about when and whether to file a 51A report they are encouraged to consult with the Child Protective Team of their institution, their practice risk manager, or legal counsel. We are happy to advise healthcare providers in this regard.

Additional successful results Megan has obtained on behalf of her clients include the following:

Obtained a defense verdict in Worcester County on behalf of a plastic surgeon. The plaintiff alleged negligent postoperative management following breast reduction surgery. The jury returned their finding that the surgeon had complied with the standard of care in his management of this patient.

Successfully defended a commercial property owner and its Director of Maintenance in a lawsuit brought by a woman claiming severe injuries from an alleged property defect. A Norfolk County Superior Court jury returned a verdict in favor of the property owner and the Director of Maintenance.

Obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a commercial property owner in Suffolk Superior Court in a suit in which a patron suffered severe injury as a result of a fall on snow and ice.

Obtained dismissal of all claims against a defendant emergency room physician in a medical malpractice action.  The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in his care and treatment of a patient while a patient in the emergency room, resulting in severe and permanent injuries. The Superior Court allowed the defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon insufficient expert disclosure.

Assisted a physician to obtain dismissal of a Board complaint and a Massachusetts Commission Discrimination complaint alleging discrimination based upon disability. 

Assisted an ophthalmologist to obtain a dismissal of a Board complaint alleging inappropriate ophthalmologic treatment.   

Assisted a physician to obtain dismissal of a Board Complaint alleging inappropriate prescribing to pregnant patient.

Represented healthcare institutions in numerous mental civil health commitments.

Presented at grand rounds on topic of civil mental health commitments.
Education
  • Suffolk University Law School, Boston, Massachusetts

    J.D., 2002
    cum laude

    • Law Review: Suffolk Transnational Law Review , Managing Editor, 2001 - 2002

  • St. Anselm College

    H.B.A., 1999

Bar Admission
  • Massachusetts, 2002
  • New Hampshire, 2018
  • U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts, 2003
  • U.S. Court of Appeals 1st Circuit, 2003