Published on: |

The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) provides compensation for maritime and harbor workers who suffer work-related injuries. In part, the LHWCA provides permanent disability benefits for employees who can no longer work because of their injuries. Employers may dispute the permanence of an employee’s injuries, but as discussed in a recent case, such positions can be challenging to prove. If you are involved in a workers’ compensation dispute, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the claimant, an ironworker employed by a steel erection company, sustained a serious back injury while performing job duties that required heavy lifting. Allegedly, following the injury, the claimant attempted to return to work in various capacities, including part-time clerical work and a brief stint as a security guard, but continued to experience disabling pain. Reportedly, the employer’s insurance carrier disputed the severity of the claimant’s disability, arguing that he was capable of performing other types of work.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers’ compensation laws in Massachusetts provide employees with specific legal protections in the event of workplace injuries, while also limiting the extent of employer liability. However, disputes often arise regarding the exclusivity provision of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (MWCA) exclusivity provision and whether employees can pursue additional legal claims. A recent Massachusetts case examined the application of MWCA in the context of employer liability and whether an injured worker could seek additional relief beyond workers’ compensation. If you were hurt at work, it is advisable to speak to a trusted Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney regarding your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed by the Town of Sandwich at a local marina when he sustained injuries in the course of his employment. Allegedly, following the incident, the plaintiff accepted workers’ compensation payments from the Town under Massachusetts law. Reportedly, the plaintiff later sought to pursue additional claims against his employer despite receiving these benefits, raising questions about the applicability of the MWCA’s exclusivity provision.

The defendant, the Town of Sandwich, argued that the plaintiff’s acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits barred him from seeking further claims under common law. It is alleged that the Town relied on Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 152, Section 23, which provides that an employee’s acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits constitutes a release of all common-law claims arising from the same injury. The Town further contended that even if it could be considered a joint tortfeasor, its liability was statutorily limited, preventing the plaintiff from seeking contribution or indemnification from the Town​. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under Massachusetts law, the Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for employees seeking damages for workplace-related injuries, including emotional distress. This was emphasized in a recent federal court decision in which the court held that an employee could not pursue claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress or false imprisonment against her employer because such claims fell within the scope of the workers’ compensation system. If you suffered an injury or distress related to your job, it is in your best interest to speak to a skilled Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to help you understand your rights and options.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff was a third-year pathology resident at a medical center when she raised concerns about what she believed to be systemic medical fraud. Allegedly, after voicing these concerns to a supervisor, her access to work systems was revoked, and she was involuntarily taken to the emergency room, where she was placed under psychiatric observation and forced to undergo a mental health evaluation. Reportedly, her employment was subsequently suspended indefinitely, and she was later informed that she had been deemed to have voluntarily resigned.

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed multiple claims against the medical center and several administrators, including claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment arising from her forced psychiatric evaluation and suspension. The defendants moved to dismiss these claims, arguing that they were barred by Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation Act, which provides the exclusive remedy for workplace-related injuries. Continue reading →

Published on: |

People hurt while working have the right to expect reasonable accommodations and protection from discriminatory termination. Sadly, however, it is not uncommon for employers to fire injured workers for asserting their rights. As demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts case, such action typically warrants grounds for pursuing civil claims. If you were terminated following a work injury, it is important to talk to an attorney about your options.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed as an oil service technician when he suffered a meniscus tear in his knee, requiring surgery. Following the surgery, the plaintiff requested a reduced work schedule, which he communicated to his supervisor via text message. The plaintiff contended that this request constituted a reasonable accommodation for his temporary disability. However, reportedly, instead of accommodating his request, the employer terminated his employment.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under Massachusetts law, general contractors can face liability for workplace injuries involving subcontractors’ employees, especially when subcontractors lack proper workers’ compensation coverage. It is not uncommon for parties to attempt to avoid liability, however, by claiming they have statutory immunity. In a recent case, a Massachusetts court highlighted the nuanced interplay between workers’ compensation statutes and common-law liability for general contractors. If you were hurt while working, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

Factual Setting and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiffs, representing the estate of the deceased workers, filed suit against the general contractor. Allegedly, the deceased workers, employees of an uninsured subcontractor, suffered fatal injuries when an explosion occurred at a construction site managed by the defendant. The subcontractor reportedly failed to obtain workers’ compensation insurance as required by law.

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, the defendant’s workers’ compensation insurer compensated the plaintiffs with lump sum settlements for their claims. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, alleging independent negligence, gross negligence, and reckless conduct. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs’ acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits released it from further liability under the Act. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed. Continue reading →

Published on: |

When employees suffer injuries at work, workers’ compensation laws ensure they have access to medical care and benefits. Disputes over the extent and cause of injuries can complicate claims; however, as highlighted in a recent Massachusetts case, credibility and the evidentiary weight of impartial medical examinations are important in determining eligibility for benefits. If you were hurt while working, it is prudent to consult a skilled Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to determine the best manner to proceed.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is reported that the claimant, an employee injured while assisting with kitchen duties due to a staffing shortage, sustained a back injury and developed psychiatric issues, including depression and anxiety, allegedly related to the accident. The claimant filed for workers’ compensation benefits under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act and included claims for physical and psychiatric injuries.

It is alleged that the administrative law judge (ALJ) awarded benefits for the claimant’s back injury based on findings of partial disability but denied benefits for the psychiatric injury. The denial was reportedly grounded in the claimant’s lack of credibility regarding the psychiatric claims and the ALJ’s rejection of the conclusions in the psychiatric IME’s report. The Industrial Accident Reviewing Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision, and the claimant subsequently appealed. Continue reading →

Published on: |

In Massachusetts, workers injured on the job may pursue compensation for their injuries under the Workers’ Compensation Act. However, issues of liability can arise when an employee seeks to hold a parent corporation responsible for a workplace accident at its subsidiary. A recent court decision clarified the extent of such liability and affirmed the application of Massachusetts’ statutory framework. If you were hurt while working, it is smart to consult an experienced Massachusetts’ workers’ compensation attorney to determine what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiffs in this case were employees of a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant operated by a subsidiary of a multinational corporation. Allegedly, while preparing a color solution in the plant’s coating area, a spark caused by static electricity ignited flammable vapors, leading to an explosion. The plaintiffs reportedly suffered severe burns and other injuries, for which they received workers’ compensation benefits.

It is alleged that the plaintiffs subsequently filed suit against the parent company, asserting that the parent company was a “responsible third party” under the Workers’ Compensation Act, as it allegedly controlled the subsidiary’s manufacturing processes and safety standards. The district court reportedly granted summary judgment in favor of the parent company, finding no evidence of liability. The plaintiffs appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation Act, workers injured on the job are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits based on their average weekly wages. However, disputes can arise over the calculation of these wages, particularly when an employee has concurrent employment in another state. Such was the issue in a recent Massachusetts case involving the application of the Commonwealth’s workers’ compensation laws to earnings from out-of-state employment. If you have questions about your rights under the Massachusetts workers’ compensation system, it is in your best interest to consult an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is reported that the claimant worked part-time as a flight instructor for a Massachusetts-insured employer and also held full-time employment as an automobile mechanic in Connecticut. Allegedly, the employee injured his back while working for the Massachusetts employer during a flight training session involving a crash on takeoff. Despite this, he reportedly continued to experience a disability affecting his duties as a mechanic in Connecticut, though he was eventually cleared to work as a flight instructor again.

It is alleged that when calculating the employee’s average weekly wage for workers’ compensation benefits, the Massachusetts insurer excluded his earnings from the Connecticut employer. The employee reportedly argued that this exclusion was improper and violated the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. Furthermore, it is alleged that the administrative judge, the Department of Industrial Accidents reviewing board, and a single justice of the Appeals Court all upheld the exclusion, referencing prior precedent.

Determining Average Weekly Wages in Workers’ Compensation Cases

The court reviewed the lower court’s interpretation of Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation Act and its applicability to wages earned outside the state. Specifically, the court examined the relationship between the statutory framework governing workers’ compensation and earnings derived from concurrent out-of-state employment.

It is reported that the court relied heavily on Massachusetts’ precedent, which determined that the Commonwealth’s workers’ compensation system is a “closed system” applicable only to Massachusetts-insured employers. The court noted that allowing out-of-state wages to factor into average weekly wage calculations would expand the system’s scope beyond its intended reach.

The court emphasized that the legislature’s intent, as reflected in the statutory language and framework, was to provide benefits based solely on employment within Massachusetts. It further concluded that the employee had failed to meet the “heavy burden” of proving the unconstitutionality of the exclusion. The court rejected the employee’s argument that the exclusion violated the commerce clause, citing well-established principles of statutory construction and constitutional law.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, holding that wages earned from out-of-state employment should not be included in determining the employee’s average weekly wage.

Talk to a Skilled Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney

Determining eligibility and calculating benefits under Massachusetts workers’ compensation laws can involve complex legal and factual questions, especially when concurrent out-of-state employment is at issue. If you were injured at work and need assistance pursuing the benefits you deserve, it is advisable to talk to an attorney. Attorney James K. Meehan is a seasoned Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer who understands the complexities of workers’ compensation cases, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Attorney Meehan at 508-822-6600 or through our online form to schedule a confidential meeting.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), correction officers injured by acts of violence are entitled to special benefits in addition to workers’ compensation. These assault pay benefits, which cover the difference between a worker’s weekly compensation and their regular salary, were at the center of a recent legal opinion issued by a Massachusetts court. If you believe you are entitled to such benefits, consulting with a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney is essential to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, a union representing correction officers, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, a sheriff’s department, seeking to impose a statutory fourteen-day deadline for processing assault pay benefit claims. The union argued that the same timeline for determining workers’ compensation benefits under the Act should apply to assault pay. Allegedly, the Superior Court rejected this argument and entered judgment in favor of the sheriff, prompting the union to appeal.

It is alleged that under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 126, § 18A, correction officers injured by acts of violence while performing their duties are entitled to assault pay benefits. These benefits supplement workers’ compensation, ensuring the employee continues to receive their full salary during recovery. However, the union contended that delays in determining entitlement to these benefits left employees without timely financial relief. Continue reading →

Published on: |

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) typically provides employees with the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries. However, the Act does not apply to all claims that may arise in connection with a person’s employment. For example, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts case, injuries sustained offsite while engaging in optional activities may not fall under the Act’s exclusivity provisions. If you were injured in connection with your job, you should contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to evaluate your possible claims.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed as a hostess at a restaurant operated by the defendant. As a benefit of her employment, the plaintiff received a discount on food purchased at the restaurant but was not required to purchase food there. Reportedly, on one occasion after her shift ended, the plaintiff purchased a discounted salad and took it home to eat. While eating the salad, the plaintiff bit into a foreign object that had been negligently left in the food, causing her to fracture a tooth.

It is reported that the plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting claims of negligence and breach of warranty. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Act, which provides an exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →