Published on: |

Massachusetts workers’ compensation laws are designed to provide benefits to employees who suffer work-related injuries. However, emotional injuries present unique legal challenges, particularly when they arise from personnel actions such as disciplinary proceedings. A recent Massachusetts workers’ compensation case examined whether an employee who developed an emotional disability following a workplace investigation was entitled to benefits. If you are dealing with a workers’ compensation dispute, it is wise to consult with an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible to ensure your rights are protected.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the claimant, a correctional officer, suffered an emotional injury following an investigatory interview regarding allegations of misconduct. The employer conducted the interview to determine whether the claimant had improperly reported income, which affected his back-pay calculation upon reinstatement. The claimant experienced severe emotional distress following the interview, resulting in his inability to return to work.

It is reported that the claimant applied for total or partial incapacity benefits under Massachusetts workers’ compensation law, asserting that the emotional distress suffered as a result of the workplace investigation rendered him unable to work. The Department of Industrial Accidents initially denied his claim, finding that the investigation constituted a bona fide personnel action, which under Massachusetts law precludes benefits for emotional injuries arising from legitimate employer actions. However, the Industrial Accident Reviewing Board reversed this decision, determining that the interview did not constitute a personnel action and thus did not bar the claimant’s right to benefits. The claimant appealed. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers engaged in maritime-related activities are entitled to specific protections under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). However, determining eligibility for benefits under this Act can be complex, especially for employees whose duties include both clerical and operational tasks. A recent Massachusetts decision provides important guidance on what constitutes maritime employment for the purpose of compensation eligibility. If you are navigating a workers’ compensation claim involving maritime employment, it is in your best interest to consult an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the claimant, a book clerk employed at a port terminal, suffered a back injury after a fall in an employee parking lot adjacent to navigable waters. The claimant’s job responsibilities included processing ship manifests, recording cargo movements, and identifying goods being loaded and unloaded. While most of the claimant’s duties took place in an office setting, he was required to inspect cargo at the container yard and, on occasion, board vessels to resolve manifest discrepancies.

It is alleged that after the injury, the claimant applied for benefits under the LHWCA. However, the Benefits Review Board denied the claim, reasoning that the claimant’s clerical duties did not constitute “maritime employment” as defined by the Act. Reportedly, the Board concluded that the claimant’s work was primarily administrative rather than directly involved in loading and unloading vessels. The claimant appealed the decision, arguing that his job required active participation in maritime operations. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers’ compensation insurance disputes can present complex legal challenges, particularly when multiple insurers may be responsible for coverage. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention in such cases. If you are involved in a workers’ compensation insurance dispute, consulting an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney is essential to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and maximizing your chances of a favorable outcome.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a workers’ compensation insurer, provided coverage for a general contractor and paid claims for an injured employee of a subcontractor. After making these payments, the plaintiff discovered that the subcontractor’s insurer had potentially failed to provide proper notice of policy cancellation. The plaintiff then sought to recover the amounts paid by filing a declaratory judgment action in Superior Court against the subcontractor’s insurer.

It is reported that the subcontractor’s insurer contended that the plaintiff’s claims were barred due to the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Department of Industrial Accidents initially ruled that the subcontractor’s insurer was not responsible for payments, and the plaintiff had not pursued an administrative appeal of that determination. It is reported that the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the subcontractor’s insurer, holding that the plaintiff should have exhausted available administrative procedures before filing in Superior Court. The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In Massachusetts, the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) often bar employees from bringing negligence claims against their employers for workplace injuries. However, when questions arise regarding whether an entity qualifies as an employer under the WCA, courts must determine liability based on statutory definitions and case law. A recent Massachusetts Superior Court decision examined whether a temporary worker could sue a host company for injuries sustained on the job. If you are dealing with a workplace injury and have questions about employer liability, consulting an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney is essential.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a temporary worker assigned by a staffing agency, suffered a serious thumb injury while operating a riveting machine at the defendant’s manufacturing facility. The plaintiff had been working at the facility for several years through different staffing agencies, with her most recent placement facilitated by an agency that provided temporary laborers to the defendant under an oral agreement.

It is reported that the defendant provided training and supervision to the plaintiff and directed her job responsibilities while she worked at the facility. However, the staffing agency retained the right to terminate or reassign the plaintiff without requiring approval from the defendant. The staffing agency also provided workers’ compensation insurance for its temporary workers, including the plaintiff, and paid insurance premiums as part of its service fees to the defendant. Following her injury, the plaintiff applied for and received workers’ compensation benefits under the staffing agency’s insurance policy.

Continue reading →

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 →