Download PDF

News & Events

Massachusetts Attorneys Obtain Summary Judgment for Veterinary Hospital in Professional Malpractice Case

Boston-area Partner Gayatri R. Deodhar and Attorney Courtney “CJ” Statham obtained summary judgment on behalf of our veterinary hospital in a professional malpractice case filed in the Stoughton District Court.

The case was filed by a domestic pet owner who alleged that veterinarians at our client’s small animal hospital misdiagnosed his dog and failed to provide appropriate treatment, causing the animal’s death following release from the hospital. Plaintiff sought to hold the veterinary hospital liable for professional medical malpractice.

Litchfield Cavo’s Defense counsel filed a cross-motion for summary judgment after Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Our Defense attorneys argued that Plaintiff failed to present the expert testimony required to establish veterinary malpractice and did not disclose a qualified expert to testify regarding the applicable standard of care. Without expert testimony supporting the allegation that the dog had been misdiagnosed, Plaintiff could not establish a viable malpractice claim.

On July 31, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted our cross-motion for summary judgment ruling in favor of our veterinary hospital client.

Gayatri R. Deodhar advises clients on civil litigation matters including premises liability, construction, personal injury and products liability cases, and against employment and professional liability claims.

CJ Statham concentrates her practice in insurance defense litigation and workers’ compensation. She defends insurance companies, privately held companies and individuals in contract, construction, personal injury and legal malpractice matters.

Disclaimer: Contents of this article or others on LitchfieldCavo.com may be considered attorney advertising under the rules of certain jurisdictions. The material contained on Litchfield Cavo LLP’s website is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute individualized legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.