December 3, 2018
Retraction Watch published an article by Richard Goldstein commenting on an important administrative law decision involving plagiarism by an NIH funded scientist. He explains why the decision could affect every principal investigator or grant applicant.
August 13, 2018
Retraction Watch, a prominent science blog, published an article by Richard Goldstein commenting on an important court decision in the long running case involving Christian Kreipke. "Are you liable for misconduct by scientific collaborators? What a recent court decision could mean for scientists." He explains why the decision has major implications for all parties in government funded research and could mean major changes in the way labs collaborate.
January 23, 2017
Massachusetts Superior Court denies motion to add hospital to existing lawsuit between private physician group and and a health care network.
In 2014, a large Massachusetts physician network terminated its contract with one of its physician groups. After joining a different physician network and a local hospital, the doctors sued their former physician network for unpaid incentive payments and the Court ruled the physician network had wrongfully withheld incentive payments. The physician network then tried to countersue the doctors and also tried to sue the local hospital the doctors had recently affiliated with. The physician network claimed the hospital tortiously and wrongfully interfered with its contract with the doctors.
In a written decision, Judge Kenneth Salinger of the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk Superior Court denied the physician network's motion to file these countersuits on the grounds it would be "futile."
Richard Goldstein represented hospital in the lawsuit.
On behalf of major construction client, Richard Goldstein secures settlement of multi-million dollar claim against public agency.
A major Massachusetts wastewater treatment agency recently agreed to a multi-million dollar settlement of a lawsuit by a prominent Massachusetts general contracting firm, which had asserted a claim for unpaid work. The contractor, which was hired to rehabilitate the agency's aging and corroded sewage treatment plant, was ordered to stop work and subsequently to remove and reinstall its work, even though the contractor's work and equipment had passed all inspections and had functioned without incident for over a year. When the agency refused to accept responsibility for its stop work order and for the changed and expanded scope of work and refused to release the remaining retainage, the contractor was forced to file suit. On the eve of trial, the agency agreed to pay the claim and to release all the retainage, resulting in a multi-million dollar payment to the contractor.
Richard Goldstein represented the contractor at all phases of the claims and litigation process.
Sept. 7, 2016
Richard Goldstein quoted in Retraction Watch, a leading science journalism website, on lawsuit by Drs. Anversa and Leri against Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital.
On behalf of scientist, Richard Goldstein reaches favorable settlement with HHS's Office of Research Integrity.
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI), the agency at the United States Department of Health & Human Services responsible for investigating allegations of research misconduct involving NIH funding, agreed to a settlement with Dr. Philippe Bois in which ORI agreed to let Dr. Bois continue doing funded government research. ORI had initially imposed a multi- debarment but agreed to a settlement after a federal judge found ORI's actions were "arbitrary and capricious." This settlement ends a seven year effort by Dr. Bois to clear his name and allows him to continue doing funded scientific research.
In 2006, Dr. Bois, then working as a post-doctoral fellow at St. Jude Medical Center in Memphis, Tenn., was accused of research misconduct. Dr. Bois fought the accusations and subsequently left St. Jude's for Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, Florida, where he continued his work. ORI subsequently imposed a multi-year debarment without interviewing Dr. Bois. ORI's decision was affirmed - also without giving Dr. Bois a hearing - by an HHS Administrative Law Judge, forcing Dr. Bois to sue ORI and HHS in federal court. After a landmark order by the federal judge vacated the Debarment Order, ORI agreed to a settlement in which Dr. Bois would continue doing NIH funded research. In a statement, Dr. Bois said, "I have been fighting to clear my name for almost 7 years, and I am glad to be able to put this matter behind and to move on with my career in science. ORI’s decision to cease seeking a debarment is a clear signal to me that its findings would not have been sustained by a judge and that its proposed punishment, a three-year debarment, was excessive and unreasonable."
Dr. Bois was represented by Richard Goldstein at all stages of this matter.
March 2, 2012