Telephone: (617) 252-3366 Ext. 117
Allyson N. Hammerstedt is a graduate of New England Law | Boston (J.D. 2010). She earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from The Catholic University of America (B.A. 2007) with minors in Philosophy and French. While in law school, Allyson was a Deanís List recipient and clerked for a number of prestigious law firms in Boston, assisting in complex litigation actions on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants.
Prior to joining Foster & Eldridge, LLP, she practiced with an insurance defense firm, focusing her practice on personal injury actions, premises and product liability, bad faith, insurance coverage and subrogation in state and federal courts.
Her current areas of practice include medical malpractice defense and health care law, defense of medical professionals before state licensing agencies, personal injury, premises and general liability litigation.
Allyson is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2010), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (2011), Rhode Island (2010) the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island (2011) and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2014). Allyson holds memberships with the American Bar Association, Massachusetts Bar Association, Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association, Cambridge-Arlington-Belmont Bar Associations,and Rhode Island Bar Association. She also serves as a Judge for New England Law | Bostonís Legal Research & Writing annual oral argument presentation.
Allyson was named a Massachusetts ďRising StarĒ Attorney by Boston Magazine in 2016.
Adams v. Stone, et al., 87 Mass. App. Ct. 1123; 31 N.E.3d 77 (2015) which holds that an expert opinion to a medical malpractice tribunal is insufficient and speculative where the expert fails to take into account the patient's delay in seeking treatment and failure to follow doctorsí recommendations for further care.
De Gonzalez v. Harder et al., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 1107; 13 N.E.3d 1027 (2014) which holds that an expert opinion to a medical malpractice tribunal is insufficient where the expert makes a generic, conclusory statement and fails to specifically state the applicable standard of care required.
Cote v. Roodhouse et al., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 1112; 16 N.E.3d 526 (2014) which holds that an expert opinion to a medical malpractice tribunal is insufficient where the expertís opinion is based on assumption of facts that have no roots in the evidence.