$82,000 Auto accident resulting in lumbar disc injury requiring injection therapy

54-year-old visiting nurse was involved in a low impact rear-ended accident while driving from one client’s home to another client’s home. Client went to the emergency room where she is diagnosed with a cervical strain. The client later presented to her primary care physician who ordered an X-ray of the cervical spine. The x-ray revealed Cervical spondylosis, moderately advanced, hypertrophic changes, multi-level disc degeneration and bilateral foraminal stenosis. Client then had an MRI of the cervical spine which revealed cervical stenosis and cervical spondylosis. Client then had an EMG which came back negative for radiculopathy. She underwent physical therapy and 3 cervical spine epidural steroid injections.

Attorney Brendan J. Noonan was able to settle the car accident claim for $82,000. He also helped the client get a lump sum workers compensation settlement in the amount of $77,500. He also helped the client get over $50,000 in lost wages.

Case Results: Attorney Brendan J. Noonan settled the auto accident claim in 2016 for $82,000.00

$53,000 Out-of-Country motor vehicle accident

Out-of-Country Motor Vehicle Accident resulting in low back injury: Client was rear-ended in 2015 while driving his vehicle in Canada. The client suffered a low back injury and underwent chiropractic treatment.

Case Results: Attorney Brendan J. Noonan was able to negotiate a $53,000 settlement.

Commonwealth v. A.P. – Massachusetts Court of Appeals

Commonwealth v. A.P.
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
Docket No. 2023-P-0581

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL REVERSING CONVICTIONS FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING, POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

Police received information from a confidential informant that the defendant was distributing drugs from his apartment in Brockton. The confidential informant engaged in two controlled purchases of drugs from the defendant at his apartment in Brockton. The police obtained a search warrant to search the defendant’s apartment. Police executed the search warrant when the defendant was inside his apartment and they located 521 grams of cocaine, 45 grams of cocaine, 10 grams of heroin, 111 amphetamine pills, 64 oxycodone pills, anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, a loaded .22 caliber pistol, a hydraulic press, scales, and packaging material. The Defendant was convicted of five indictments, including drug trafficking, possession with intent to distribute, and unlawful possession of a firearm and he was sentenced to serve 3.5-5 years in state prison. Upon appeal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the search warrant was unconstitutional and failed to satisfy the particularity requirements because the warrant described the items to be seized as “all controlled substances under Chapter 94C. The Appeals Court agreed, and the Defendant’s convictions were reversed and he was released from custody.

Commonwealth v. A.P. – Mass. Appeals Court

Mass. Appeals Court
Docket No. 2023-P-0581

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL REVERSING CONVICTIONS FOR DRUG TRAFFICKING, POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE AND UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

Police received information from a confidential informant that the defendant was distributing drugs from his apartment in Brockton. The confidential informant engaged in two controlled purchases of drugs from the defendant at his apartment in Brockton. The police obtained a search warrant to search the defendant’s apartment. Police executed the search warrant when the defendant was inside his apartment and they located 521 grams of cocaine, 45 grams of cocaine, 10 grams of heroin, 111 amphetamine pills, 64 oxycodone pills, anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, a loaded .22 caliber pistol, a hydraulic press, scales, and packaging material. The Defendant was convicted of five indictments, including drug trafficking, possession with intent to distribute, and unlawful possession of a firearm and he was sentenced to serve 3.5-5 years in state prison. Upon appeal, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the search warrant was unconstitutional and failed to satisfy the particularity requirements because the warrant described the items to be seized as “all controlled substances under Chapter 94C. The Appeals Court agreed, and the Defendant’s convictions were reversed and he was released from custody.

Commonwealth v. John Doe

MULTIPLE COUNTS OF VIOLATION OF AN ABUSE PREVENTION ORDER DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The client had a clerk-magistrate hearing on an application for criminal complaint alleging three counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, §7). At the clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan successfully argued that there was no probable cause to support any of the charges. The clerk found no probable cause and dismissed the criminal complaints with prejudice, meaning that these charges can never be filed against the client again.

Commonwealth v. Jane Doe – Wareham District Court

FELONY LARCENY CHARGE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT. THE CLIENT WILL NOT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL RECORD.

The client was renting an apartment. When she moved out, she owed two months rent. According to the landlord, he contacted her to request payment, but she refused. The rent amount exceeded $1,200. The police filed an application for criminal complaint against the client for Larceny by Check (G.L. c. 266, §37), a felony offense. The criminal complaint was issued, and the client was scheduled to be arraigned in court. If she was arraigned, this felony offense would be on her criminal record. The client had no criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan negotiated with the District Attorney’s Office and the landlord, and the criminal complaint was dismissed prior to arraignment. She will have no record.

Commonwealth v. Jane Doe – Wareham District Court

FELONY LARCENY CHARGE DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT. THE CLIENT WILL NOT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL RECORD.

The client was renting an apartment. When she moved out, she owed two months rent. According to the landlord, he contacted her to request payment, but she refused. The rent amount exceeded $1,200. The police filed an application for criminal complaint against the client for Larceny by Check (G.L. c. 266, §37), a felony offense. The criminal complaint was issued, and the client was scheduled to be arraigned in court. If she was arraigned, this felony offense would be on her criminal record. The client had no criminal record. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan negotiated with the District Attorney’s Office and the landlord, and the criminal complaint was dismissed prior to arraignment. She will have no record.

Commonwealth v. John Doe – Taunton District Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT CHARGING CLIENT WITH CARRYING A FIREARM WITHOUT A LICENSE, CARRYING MINIMUM-MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCE, DISMISSED UPON PROOF THAT THE CLIENT DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME.

The client, a resident of Idaho, was traveling through Massachusetts when he was pulled over for a defective license plate. Police searched the trunk of the client’s car and located an unloaded handgun. The officer demanded that the client produce a valid firearms license, but the client told police that he did not have a firearm license. In preparing the case for trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan contacted the licensed firearm dealer who sold the client the firearm. The client was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License (G.L. c. 269, §10A), which carries a minimum-mandatory jail sentence of 18 months. Attorney Noonan obtained a certified business record confirming that the client legally purchased the firearm in his home state of Idaho. The licensed dealer attested that the client’s purchase of the firearm complied with state and federal law. Attorney Noonan argued that the client complied with Massachusetts law when traveling through the Commonwealth with his firearm because he kept the firearm secured in his trunk and the firearm was unloaded. In advance of trial, Attorney Noonan presented the District Attorney’s Office with this evidence proving that his client did not commit a crime by transporting his firearm through Massachusetts. Upon review, the District Attorney’s Office agreed to dismiss the case after one year.

Commonwealth v. John Doe – Wrentham District Court

CHARGE OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST CAR SALESMAN DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

The client has an unrestricted license to carry firearms. He went over to his girlfriend’s house. He did not want to bring his firearm into his girlfriend’s home, so he left the firearm in his car. When he returned home, he forgot that his firearm was in his car. The next morning, the client discovered that someone had broken into his car and stolen his firearm. The client immediately reported the theft of his firearm to the police. Because the client left the firearm unattended in his vehicle, permitting access to the firearm by others, including car thieves, the police charged him with Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L). At the clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his client made a mistake. However, in terms of mitigation, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the client made efforts to secure the firearm by removing the magazine and fastening a cable through the empty magazine and chamber, but did not fully secure the firearm in compliance with Massachusetts law. Furthermore, the client acted responsibly by immediately reporting his missing firearm to the police. The clerk decided to dismiss the complaint after one year, so long as the client stays out of trouble, which shouldn’t be a problem because he has never been in any trouble before.

Commonwealth v. John Doe – Wrentham District Court

CHARGE OF IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST CAR SALESMAN DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

The client has an unrestricted license to carry firearms. He went over to his girlfriend’s house. He did not want to bring his firearm into his girlfriend’s home, so he left the firearm in his car. When he returned home, he forgot that his firearm was in his car. The next morning, the client discovered that someone had broken into his car and stolen his firearm. The client immediately reported the theft of his firearm to the police. Because the client left the firearm unattended in his vehicle, permitting access to the firearm by others, including car thieves, the police charged him with Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L). At the clerk-magistrate hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that his client made a mistake. However, in terms of mitigation, Attorney Noonan presented evidence that the client made efforts to secure the firearm by removing the magazine and fastening a cable through the empty magazine and chamber, but did not fully secure the firearm in compliance with Massachusetts law. Furthermore, the client acted responsibly by immediately reporting his missing firearm to the police. The clerk decided to dismiss the complaint after one year, so long as the client stays out of trouble, which shouldn’t be a problem because he has never been in any trouble before.