top of page

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.

May 5, 2017

Richard Goldstein quoted in Retraction Watch on lawsuit by ecologist against the National Science Foundation.

April 29, 2017

Richard Goldstein quoted in Retraction Watch on decision ordering the VA to re-hire a scientist found guilty of misconduct.

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. 

January 2017

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.

March 2, 2012

D.C. Federal Court Issues Landmark Order Vacating ORI Debarment Order Against Research Scientist.

In a landmark decision, a federal judge in Washington, DC held that the Department of Health and Human Services, acting on behalf of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) had acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" fashion when it issued an order excluding a research scientist from further federal grant funding without first giving the scientist an opportunity to present his case before an administrative law judge.   Prior to this time, ORI and HHS had issued debarment orders against scientists without giving them an opportunity for a hearing during which they could present witnesses and evidence.  The court held that to deny the scientist a hearing was a violation of law and ordered the debarment ordered lifted. 


The scientist was represented by Richard Goldstein in this matter.  

bottom of page