Published on: |

People injured while working on or near navigable waters may be entitled to disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). The Act provides a structured framework to ensure that qualifying employees receive financial assistance after a workplace injury. One critical issue in determining the amount of benefits available is identifying the date when an employee is considered “newly awarded compensation.” Recently, the United States Supreme Court examined this question and clarified its meaning. If you suffered a work-related injury on the waterfront, it is important to understand how the timing of your award could affect the benefits you receive.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

Allegedly, the petitioner worked for the defendant at a marine terminal in Alaska, where he slipped on ice in 2002 and injured his neck and shoulder. The petitioner was unable to return to work. Reportedly, the defendant voluntarily paid the petitioner disability benefits, except for a brief period in 2003, without any formal compensation order being issued.

It is reported that in 2005, the defendant stopped making voluntary payments. As a result, the petitioner filed a formal claim under the LHWCA, which the defendant contested. The dispute was heard by an administrative law judge (ALJ) in 2007, who awarded the petitioner benefits based on the statutory maximum for the year 2002, when the disability began. The petitioner argued that the award should have been calculated using the higher statutory maximum rate in effect in 2007, the year of the ALJ’s order. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Families who lose a loved one in a workplace accident often feel a natural desire to pursue justice through the courts. Yet, under Massachusetts law, many of these claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. These provisions are designed to ensure uniform remedies but can sometimes leave families with no recourse against an employer, even in heartbreaking circumstances. A recent decision from the Supreme Judicial Court illustrates just how far this exclusivity rule extends. If you or a loved one has suffered harm at work, it is critical to understand how workers’ compensation law affects your rights, and you should consult an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent, an 18-year-old high school student working at a Boston pharmacy, attempted with other employees to stop a suspected shoplifter. Reportedly, the suspect responded with sudden violence, stabbing the decedent in the neck and causing fatal injuries almost instantly.

Allegedly, the decedent had no dependents, though he lived with his mother and was financially connected to both of his parents. Because he left no dependents, no workers’ compensation death benefits were paid, aside from funeral expenses voluntarily covered by a related corporation. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Employees who experience harassment in the workplace may understandably wish to pursue a variety of legal remedies. However, Massachusetts law provides carefully structured statutory schemes that limit the avenues for relief. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court demonstrates how exclusivity provisions in the Workers’ Compensation Act can block employees from bringing common law or alternative statutory claims. If you have faced workplace harassment or discrimination, it is critical to understand these limits and to seek advice from an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can guide you through the proper channels.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company from 1985 until her termination in 1992. During her employment, she was subjected to ongoing sexual harassment in multiple departments, including threats, obscene remarks, sexual slurs, and offensive visual displays. The employer held occasional meetings in response to her complaints but failed to take meaningful corrective action. The plaintiff further alleged that when she requested a change in her schedule or work environment, her requests were largely denied, and she continued to be exposed to harassment.

It is reported that the plaintiff’s employment was ultimately terminated, and as a result of the hostile work environment she endured, she suffered severe emotional distress. She filed a lawsuit asserting multiple claims, including violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, and G.L. c. 214, § 1C, which guarantees a right to be free from sexual harassment. She also brought common law claims for negligent supervision, failure to investigate, breach of contract, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Victims of sexual harassment or assault in the workplace often feel entitled to pursue every legal avenue against their employer. However, Massachusetts law channels such claims into specific statutory schemes, leaving little room for common law actions. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights how the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the state’s anti-discrimination law can bar victims and their families from seeking additional remedies in court. If you or a loved one experienced harassment or assault at work, it is critical to understand these limitations and to speak to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney promptly about the proper way to preserve your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff was working at a retail store when she was assaulted and raped by an assistant store manager who was not scheduled to work that evening. The manager sent other employees home, leaving the plaintiff alone before committing the assault.

Allegedly, the employer had previously disciplined the assistant store manager for inappropriate conduct, including sexual harassment, and had received complaints from other employees about his behavior. Following the incident, the employer terminated the assistant store manager. Continue reading →

Published on: |

When an employee is injured at or near their workplace, one of the first questions that arises is whether the injury is covered under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. The Act provides a comprehensive and exclusive system of remedies for injuries occurring in the course of employment. A recent decision issued by a Massachusetts court demonstrates how strictly courts enforce the exclusivity provision, even when an insurance carrier initially denies coverage. If you were injured on the job, it is wise to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant community health center and, on the day of the accident, had completed her shift and punched out. She exited the building and began walking across property owned or controlled by the defendant, intending to head toward a nearby CVS Pharmacy. While still on the employer’s property, she tripped on a curb and suffered personal injuries.

It is further reported that the defendant filed a workers’ compensation report with its insurance carrier. The insurer subsequently denied coverage, claiming the plaintiff was not acting within the course and scope of her employment when the injury occurred. The plaintiff received notice of this denial but did not file her own claim or appeal to the Department of Industrial Accidents. Instead, nearly three years later, she filed a lawsuit in Superior Court seeking damages under common-law theories. Continue reading →

Published on: |

When an injured worker seeks insurance benefits after a serious accident, the expectation is that coverage will provide timely and adequate support for medical care and recovery. Unfortunately, disputes over insurance obligations can create additional hardship for workers already facing devastating injuries. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights how courts review claims of unfair settlement practices and bad faith under Massachusetts law when an insurer delays or denies benefits. If you were hurt at work, it is important to understand your options, and you should speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered severe injuries in March 2022 while working as an independent contractor for a food delivery service. The injuries included head trauma, facial disfigurement, spinal damage, and hand injuries, among others. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was covered under an occupational accident policy issued by the defendant insurance company and administered by its third-party claims handler. The policy was intended to provide medical and dental expense benefits of up to $1,000,000 for work-related accidents.

It is further reported that shortly after the accident, the plaintiff attempted to secure treatment for his injuries through the policy but encountered repeated obstacles. The insurer’s adjuster failed to provide a recommended provider list for nearly two months, leaving the plaintiff to attempt to schedule appointments on his own. In some cases, the adjuster suggested the plaintiff pay out of pocket and later seek reimbursement, even though his injuries left him financially vulnerable. When the plaintiff eventually scheduled a specialist appointment, it was canceled due to the adjuster’s inaction, causing additional delays in critical treatment. Continue reading →

Published on: |

When an employee is injured or harassed in the workplace, one of the first questions that arises is whether the claim belongs in the workers’ compensation system or in civil court. Massachusetts law generally requires employees to pursue remedies for workplace injuries through the Workers’ Compensation Act, which provides benefits for medical care and lost wages. At the same time, the law draws a boundary between physical and psychological injuries compensable under the statute and the kinds of discrimination or harassment claims that may be pursued under separate statutes. A recent federal decision provides an important reminder of how the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act interacts with claims of harassment and retaliation. If you suffered harm of any nature in the workplace, it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, employed as an office manager by the defendant union, alleged a series of escalating acts of sexual harassment by her supervisor. The conduct included inappropriate comments, intimidation, and ultimately indecent exposure. The plaintiff claimed that these actions caused her both physical and psychological harm. In addition to her discrimination and retaliation claims, the plaintiff sought damages under common-law theories such as negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

When a worker is injured on the job, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act generally provides the exclusive remedy against the employer. Questions sometimes arise, however, when a staffing agency places a worker at a company’s site, raising issues of who qualifies as the employer and whether the host company is shielded from tort liability. This was illustrated in a recent Massachusetts decision where a temporary worker sought to pursue negligence claims against the company that had supervised his work. If you were hurt while working, it is important to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney regarding your rights.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff was injured on November 24, 2018, while working as a temporary employee for the defendant on assignment from a staffing agency. The staffing agency was responsible for interviewing, hiring, assigning, and paying employees, while the defendant supervised the plaintiff’s day-to-day work, safeguarded the premises, and provided safety training. On March 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligence, gross negligence, and reckless conduct against the defendant, contending that the defendant’s failures caused his injuries.

It is reported that the defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act barred the plaintiff’s tort claims. The defendant argued it qualified as an “alternate employer” under the staffing agency’s workers’ compensation insurance policy. This endorsement, referencing an amendatory endorsement, provided that all clients of the staffing agency were considered alternate employers for workers’ compensation purposes, subject to certain conditions. The motion judge agreed, concluding that the staffing agreement between the defendant and the staffing agency met the definition of a written contract contemplated by the endorsement. Accordingly, the defendant was deemed an alternate employer and immune from tort liability. Continue reading →

Published on: |

The Massachusetts Workers’  Compensation system includes two distinct statutory safety nets designed to ensure benefit continuity for injured workers: the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund (Insolvency Fund) and the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund (Trust Fund). In cases involving uninsured employers and insolvent insurers, disputes may arise over which fund must assume responsibility for ongoing benefit payments. A recent decision by a Massachusetts court addresses this complex statutory overlap and clarifies the obligations of the Trust Fund when an insurer is declared insolvent after benefits have already been paid. If you were hurt while working, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, a statutory insolvency fund responsible for claims arising from insolvent insurers, made benefit payments to injured workers whose employers were later revealed to be uninsured at the time of injury. These payments were made after the plaintiff stepped in following insurer insolvencies and sought reimbursement from the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund under G.L. c. 152, § 65(2)(e), which authorizes the Fund to reimburse insurers for claims involving uninsured employers.

It is alleged that the Trust Fund denied the reimbursement requests on the basis that the Insolvency Fund does not meet the statutory definition of an “insurer” entitled to recover under § 65(2)(e). The Trust Fund contended that the Legislature intended the reimbursement provision to apply only to active insurers that voluntarily pay benefits, not to a fund acting in the capacity of a failed insurer’s successor. The plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court, seeking declaratory relief to compel reimbursement. The trial court ruled in favor of the Trust Fund, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

Published on: |

In Massachusetts, disputes involving the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund (the Fund) often hinge on strict compliance with statutory procedures and limitations periods. Insurers that pay benefits on claims involving uninsured employers may later seek reimbursement from the Fund, but the process requires timely and complete documentation. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court clarifies the standards that apply to such claims and underscores the significance of administrative record-keeping in workers’ compensation litigation. If you were hurt while working, it is important to understand your rights, and you should consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Case Setting and Factual History

It is reported that the plaintiff, an insurance company, issued a workers’ compensation policy to an employer in 2003. The employer was later removed from coverage due to nonpayment of premiums, rendering it uninsured. In 2005, an employee of the now-uninsured employer sustained a compensable work injury. Although the employer lacked active insurance at the time, the plaintiff insurer voluntarily paid benefits to the injured worker pursuant to G.L. c. 152, § 65(2)(e), which authorizes insurers to pay benefits where the status of coverage is uncertain or the claim is otherwise unresolved.

Continue reading →