413-781-2820 413-781-2820

Appellate Practice Group

Our Appellate Practice Group has handled, and won, many appeals in state and federal courts. Our extensive experience helps us to anticipate possible appellate issues in the trial courts. We are familiar with the unusual features of Massachusetts appellate practice, including direct and further appellate review, petitions for rehearing, and interlocutory appeals in the single justice sessions of the Massachusetts Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court. We also have expertise, and handle appellate to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We recognize the value of amicus briefs in appeals that raise novel issues, and work with our clients to identify and invite the participation of potential amici in appropriate cases.

Our appellate victories include:

  • Omega Flex, Inc. v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co., 78 Mass. App. Ct. 262 (2010) (vacating judgment entered against BR&G’s client Omega Flex on grounds that it was entitled to reimbursement of costs incurred in defending against nationwide class action)
  • Lechoslaw v. Bank of America, 618 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2010) (appeal by plaintiff following trial victory for BR&G’s client Bank of America; affirming pre-trial dismissal of claims against Polish bank, also represented by BR&G, based on lack of personal jurisdiction and affirming various evidentiary and procedural rulings in favor of Bank of America)
  • Vranos v. Franklin Medical Center (“Vranos II”), 77 Mass. App. Ct. 280 (2010) (affirming two orders that together represented a complete victory for BR&G’s client Baystate Franklin Medical Center, disposing of all claims brought against the hospital by a suspended physician)
  • D.R.P. v. W.F.C., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2010) (Rule 1.28 Memorandum and Order) (affirming summary judgment for BR&G’s client, the sole director, majority shareholder, and president of corporation, on claims by minority shareholder of wrongful termination, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty; affirming grant of request that minority shareholder tender shares pursuant to shareholder agreement)
  • Eastern Holding Corp. v. Congress Financial Corp., 74 Mass. App. Ct. 737 (2009) (BR&G’s clients obtained reversal of summary judgment on grounds that they were entitled to release of cash collateral pledged to secure loans so long as loans were repaid prior to date collateral was applied by defendant to other outstanding loans)
  • Odunukwe v. Bank of America, 335 Fed. Appx. 58 (1st Cir. 2009), 2009 WL 1875324 (1st Cir. July 1, 2009) (affirming jury verdict in favor of BR&G’s client Bank of America in civil rights action)
  • Petricca v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 1124 (2008) (Rule 1.28 Memorandum and Order) (affirming summary judgment for BR&G’s client PricewaterhouseCoopers on professional malpractice claim based on statute of limitations)
  • Vranos v. Franklin Medical Ctr. (“Vranos I”), 448 Mass. 425 (2007) (BR&G’s client Baystate Franklin Medical Center obtained reversal on its interlocutory appeal of a discovery order; the SJC ruled that materials related to physician disciplinary proceeding were not discoverable based on medical peer review privilege)
  • Pellegrino v. Springfield Parking Auth., 69 Mass. App. Ct. 94, rev. den., 449 Mass. 1109 (2007) (affirming summary judgment for BR&G’s client Springfield Parking Authority on its right to terminate an employment contract that authorized an individual to collect salary and retirement benefits simultaneously)
  • Balsbaugh v. Fidelity Brokerage Servs., 69 Mass. App. Ct. 1104 (2007) (Rule 1.28 Memorandum and Order) (affirming dismissal of check fraud claims against BR&G’s client Fidelity Brokerage Services based on allowance of motion in limine establishing that plaintiff had no cognizable damages)
  • Lambert v. Fleet Nat’l Bank, 449 Mass. 119 (2007), same case, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 1121 (2006) (summary judgment for BR&G’s client Fleet National Bank affirmed by the Appeals Court and the SJC on further appellate review because indefinite oral representations did not constitute an enforceable oral promise to renew a loan, nor did borrower prove unfair business practice by the bank)
  • Morris v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 716, rev. denied, 447 Mass. 1109 (2006) (affirming summary judgment for BR&G’s client Unum Life Insurance Company of America on breach of contract and tort claims related to the insurer’s denial of benefits under an exclusion in an individual disability policy)
  • Bromberg v. Fleet Nat’l Bank, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2005) (Rule 1:28 Memorandum and Order) (affirming summary judgment for BR&G’s client Fleet National Bank on claims of fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract and Chapter 93A)
  • Chief Justice for Admin. and Management of the Trial Court v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 439 Mass. 729 (2003) (affirming the MCAD’s order in favor of BR&G’s client, a trial court clerk denied promotion because of gender discrimination)
  • Rutanen v. Baylis (In Re Baylis), 313 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2002) (the First Circuit ruled that a judgment in favor of BR&G’s clients for breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee was not dischargeable in bankruptcy)
  • Guardianship of Pollard, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 318, rev. denied, 437 Mass. 1103 (2002) (affirming Family and Probate Court’s denial of petition for guardianship filed by relatives of BR&G’s elderly client)
  • Egan v. Athol Memorial Hosp., 134 F.3d 361 (1st Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 964 (1998) (affirming summary judgment for BR&G’s clients, which included the hospital, the hospital’s chief administrator and nine doctors on its medical staff on the grounds, among others, that clients’ actions in medical peer review matter were protected by the immunity provided by federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act)
  • Vartanian v. Monsanto Co., 131 F.3d 264 (1st Cir. 1997) (establishing standard for fiduciary’s disclosure obligations in connection with ERISA plan; affirming dismissal and summary judgment for BR&G’s client Monsanto Company on ERISA and negligent misrepresentation claims)
  • Moriarty v. Stone, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 151, rev. denied, 423 Mass. 1110 (1996) (affirming divorce decree challenged on appeal by husband of BR&G’s client because decree included value of parties’ pre-marital contributions)
  • Isles v. WHC Jr., 98 F.3d 1333 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied sub. nom Isles v. Cosby, 520 U.S. 1277 (1997) (per curiam) (affirming summary judgment obtained by BR&G for its clients, a celebrity entertainer and his wife, in employment discrimination suit filed by a former employee)
  • In re Dugan, 418 Mass. 185 (1994), same case, 416 Mass. 461 (1993) (BR&G appointed as special counsel to represent Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of Courts; SJC affirmed removal for misconduct of Clerk of Northampton District Court and rejected Clerk’s challenge to its jurisdiction)
  • Amerada Hess Corp. v. Garabedian, 416 Mass. 149 (1993) (affirming summary judgment requiring specific performance on contract for sale of real estate for BR&G’s client Amerada Hess Corporation)
  • Perez v. Bay State Ambulance & Hosp. Rental Serv., Inc., 413 Mass. 670 (1992) (established standard of proof before medical malpractice tribunal; affirming dismissal of claims against BR&G’s client on grounds that plaintiff’s offer of proof to tribunal was insufficient)
  • Frazier v. Bailey, 957 F.2d 920 (1st Cir. 1992) (affirming summary judgment for physician represented by BR&G on grounds that physician assessing allegation of child abuse was entitled to absolute immunity for actions during litigation)
  • St. Louis v. Baystate Medical Ctr., Inc., 30 Mass. App. Ct. 393 (1991) (affirming dismissal of breach of contract, tortious interference and Chapter 93 claims against BR&G’s client Baystate Medical Center on res judicata grounds)
  • Lyons v. Lyons, 403 Mass. 1003 (1988) (BR&G obtained reversal and remand of divorce matter for its client on basis that value of contingent fee agreement should have been included in marital estate)
  • Pellegrino v. City Council of Springfield, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 459 (1986) (reversed trial court ruling and held that height restriction in city zoning ordinance was not applicable to physician office building being constructed by BR&G’s client Baystate Medical Center)


The Appellate Practice Group Coordinator is Andrew Levchuk.