Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

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 →

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 →

Continue reading →

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 →

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 →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) provides that employees who suffer injuries arising out of their employment can recover benefits, including weekly wage replacement payments for dependents in cases of death. It can be challenging to recover such benefits in cases involving latent injuries, and significant gaps between exposure and eligibility for benefits, however, as highlighted in a recent Massachusetts decision. If you are pursuing workers’ compensation benefits or seeking clarity on your rights, consulting with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney is crucial.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the employee worked for a power company from for thirty years. Reportedly, he was exposed to asbestos fibers throughout his employment. It is further alleged that four years after retiring, the employee was diagnosed with asbestosis and metastatic adenocarcinoma, illnesses linked to his work-related asbestos exposure. He ultimately succumbed to his illnesses nearly five years after his diagnosis.

It is reported that the employee’s widow filed a claim for benefits under § 31 of the Act, which provides for payments to dependents of employees who die due to work-related injuries. An administrative judge acknowledged that the employee’s work exposure to asbestos caused his illness and death but denied benefits, citing the employee’s voluntary retirement and lack of earnings in the year preceding his death. On appeal, the Industrial Accident Reviewing Board reversed the denial, directing payments based on the employee’s last earnings. The employer’s insurer appealed, prompting the Supreme Judicial Court’s review. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, workers’ compensation is designed to provide financial relief for employees injured on the job. However, as a recent Massachusetts case illustrates, disputes regarding earning capacity assessments can arise during the claims process; as such, it is important that judges take a reasoned approach to such determinations. If you were injured at work and have concerns about your workers’ compensation claim, it is wise to meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to explore your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the claimant, an ironworker, suffered a back injury while working for his employer. Following his injury, the insurer initially provided temporary total disability benefits pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. Later, the insurer sought to modify or discontinue these benefits, leading to a dispute over the claimant’s earning capacity.

Allegedly, an administrative judge found the claimant to be partially disabled and awarded him partial disability benefits based on an assigned earning capacity of $975 per week. The judge determined that the claimant could perform “light duty” work but provided no explanation of what such employment might entail or the basis for the $975 figure. The Industrial Accident Reviewing Board summarily affirmed this decision, and the claimant appealed. Continue reading →

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), employees are entitled to benefits and protections for injuries sustained at work. The Act, however, does not fully protect against all employment actions taken by employers, particularly in cases where accommodations are requested and subsequently denied due to job limitations. A recent Massachusetts case highlights issues around disability accommodations, retaliation, and adherence to COVID-19 protocols. If you believe you were terminated or discriminated against due to a workers’ compensation claim or for seeking accommodations, it is essential to consult a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney to review your rights and options.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff, an employee of the defendant childcare agency since 2007, worked as a teaching assistant. Her duties included assisting children with basic care and maintenance of classroom spaces. In 2017, the plaintiff sustained a back injury while lifting a child and subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim. Following her injury, she sought a series of accommodations to limit her lifting duties. The defendant granted some of these requests but ultimately denied others, citing that her requested limitations would prevent her from fulfilling essential job responsibilities. When her symptoms persisted, the plaintiff’s final accommodation request included limitations on lifting, bending, and standing, which the defendant denied, offering instead a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Allegedly, in 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendant implemented a COVID-19 protocol, which included mandatory self-screening for symptoms and strict adherence to reporting guidelines. Despite understanding the protocol, the plaintiff reportedly attended work while experiencing symptoms consistent with COVID-19. On August 3, 2020, she received a positive COVID-19 test result while at work, prompting an immediate facility shutdown and quarantine measures. Shortly after her recovery, the defendant terminated her employment, citing failure to comply with COVID-19 protocol and alleged misrepresentation on health attestations. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging wrongful termination, retaliation under workers’ compensation laws, and disability discrimination. The defendant then moved for summary judgment. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) protects employees’ rights to pursue benefits for workplace injuries. However, while employees are shielded from retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claims, employers may legally investigate the legitimacy of such claims, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts case involving a claim for dental injury. If you believe you were wrongfully terminated or retaliated against for exercising your workers’ compensation rights, you should meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to assess your options.

Case Setting and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a jail officer, claimed to have sustained a dental injury during a workplace altercation and subsequently filed for workers’ compensation benefits. During the investigation into the injury, the plaintiff submitted multiple documents to the employer’s insurer to support his claim. These documents included a backdated report from a superior and an altered medical progress note, both of which the superior and treating physician assistant later admitted to falsifying at the plaintiff’s request. Despite evidence suggesting the dental injury may have occurred, the employer discovered discrepancies in the documentation, leading it to conduct an internal investigation.

Reportedly, following the investigation, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated for submitting fraudulent documents and violating the employee code of conduct. He then filed a lawsuit against the employer, alleging retaliation under the Act, claiming that his termination was a direct result of his workers’ compensation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that his termination constituted unlawful retaliation. Continue reading →