Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

Employees who suffer serious workplace injuries often assume that receiving workers’ compensation benefits protects them from losing their jobs. While Massachusetts law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for pursuing workers’ compensation claims, it does not prevent employers from taking legitimate employment actions when an injured worker can no longer perform the essential functions of the position, even with a reasonable accommodation. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights the distinction between workers’ compensation rights and disability discrimination protections. If you have questions about your rights after a workplace injury, an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help you understand the protections available under the law and evaluate whether your employer acted lawfully.

Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff worked as a registered nurse at a state mental health facility, where she provided direct care to psychiatric patients. Several years before the events leading to the lawsuit, she filed an internal complaint alleging sexual harassment against a supervisor. She later transferred to another facility, where she claimed she experienced hostility and mistreatment after another supervisor learned about her earlier complaint.

Allegedly, the plaintiff suffered a serious back injury while restraining a patient during the course of her employment. As a result, she received workers’ compensation benefits and remained out of work while undergoing medical treatment. Independent medical evaluations concluded that she could return to work only if she were not required to restrain patients or use physical force. The employer offered her a temporary modified work plan, but she declined because she believed she could still be required to restrain patients in an emergency. After exhausting her available leave and remaining unable to return to work, the employer held a hearing and ultimately terminated her employment because she could not perform the essential functions of her position. Continue reading →

When a fatal workplace accident occurs, many families assume that workers’ compensation benefits are their only available remedy. In most cases, Massachusetts workers’ compensation law prevents employees and their families from suing an employer for injuries or death arising out of the employment relationship. However, there are important exceptions. A decision by a Massachusetts court illustrates that corporate mergers and complex business relationships can create circumstances in which a negligence claim may proceed despite the general exclusivity of the workers’ compensation system. If you have lost a loved one in a workplace accident or suffered a serious work-related injury, an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help determine whether additional legal claims may be available.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, the decedent was employed by a corporation that operated cranberry bogs and was fatally injured while operating a sanding buggy during the course of his employment. The equipment had been designed and constructed before his accident by entities that later became part of a larger corporate reorganization. After the accident, the decedent’s family received workers’ compensation death benefits but also filed a wrongful death action alleging that negligent design, manufacture, and maintenance of the equipment caused the fatal accident. Because the original corporations had merged into another company before the accident occurred, the family ultimately pursued the surviving corporation as the defendant.

Allegedly, the defendant argued that the lawsuit was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act because it employed the decedent when the accident occurred. The defendant also asserted that any liability arising from predecessor corporations was shielded by workers’ compensation immunity inherited through the corporate merger. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment for the defendant. The decedent’s family appealed. Continue reading →

After a workplace injury, employees often feel frustrated when disciplinary action, benefit disputes, or employment decisions threaten their livelihood. It can be tempting to head straight to court for immediate relief, especially when the consequences include losing income or health insurance. However, Massachusetts law generally requires employees to pursue available administrative remedies before asking a court to intervene. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court serves as an important reminder that courts expect administrative agencies to resolve disputes within their authority before judicial review becomes available. If you have questions about your rights following a workplace injury or employment dispute, speaking with an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help you determine the appropriate course of action and avoid unnecessary delays.

Case Setting

Reportedly, the plaintiff, a firefighter, filed a lawsuit seeking to halt an ongoing disciplinary proceeding initiated by his employer. Along with his complaint, he requested emergency injunctive relief, asking the court to stay the disciplinary process before a final employment decision was made. On the very day the lawsuit was filed, however, the employer completed the disciplinary process and terminated the plaintiff’s employment. The employer opposed the request for an injunction, arguing that the request had become moot and that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available under Massachusetts civil service law.

Allegedly, the plaintiff argued that the physician who examined him in connection with his claimed work-related injury had forged a medical release, that the official overseeing the disciplinary proceedings was biased, that his union failed to represent him fairly, and that he suffered irreparable harm because he lost his employment and health insurance. The court denied the request for injunctive relief, concluding that the plaintiff first had to pursue the administrative procedures available through the Civil Service Commission before seeking judicial intervention. The court subsequently dismissed the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

Properly classifying workers is one of the most important responsibilities an employer has under Massachusetts law. When an employer improperly labels an employee as an independent contractor, the consequences can extend far beyond payroll practices. Misclassified workers may be deprived of important legal protections, including workers’ compensation coverage, wage protections, and other statutory benefits. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court reinforces that employers cannot avoid their legal obligations by using contractual labels or shifting business expenses onto workers. If you believe you have been misclassified or required to pay expenses that should have been borne by your employer, an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help you understand your rights and pursue the remedies available under the law.

History of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiffs entered into agreements with a company to provide commercial janitorial services for the company’s customers. Although the agreements characterized the workers as franchisees or independent contractors, a federal court determined that the Massachusetts workers involved had been misclassified and were actually employees under the Commonwealth’s independent contractor statute. The case then focused on the damages available to one of the workers as a result of that misclassification.

Allegedly, the company required the worker to pay a variety of fees and expenses, including charges associated with workers’ compensation and other insurance coverage. The company also operated a payment system under which workers received compensation only after customers paid their invoices, and if customers failed to pay within a specified period, the company recaptured amounts previously advanced to the worker through chargebacks. The federal court certified several questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concerning whether these practices complied with the Massachusetts Wage Act. Continue reading →

Employees who work in ports, shipyards, and other maritime settings may be covered by both federal and state workers’ compensation laws. In some circumstances, federal law allows injured workers to pursue benefits under both systems, but whether dual recovery is actually available depends on the interaction between federal law and the applicable state workers’ compensation statute. A recent workers’ compensation decision illustrates how a state law may limit an employee’s ability to recover additional benefits after accepting compensation under the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. If you have questions regarding whether you may pursue workers’ compensation benefits under both federal and state law, you should consult with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your legal rights.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, the claimant had worked at a commercial port for many years and, following a change in ownership, continued his employment as a janitor. His responsibilities primarily involved cleaning restroom trailers, sweeping, removing trash, and performing other custodial tasks throughout the port facility. He did not load or unload ships, perform longshore work, or board vessels as part of his employment.

Allegedly, the claimant sustained a serious injury to his left upper extremity while clearing snow from outside a restroom trailer so he could perform his cleaning duties. The injury ultimately required three surgeries. The employer accepted the claim under the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) and paid both medical expenses and wage replacement benefits. Several years later, the claimant filed petitions seeking additional disability, permanent impairment, and disfigurement benefits under the applicable state workers’ compensation law. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act provides injured employees with important benefits after workplace injuries, but those benefits often come with a significant tradeoff. In most cases, employees who suffer injuries arising out of and in the course of their employment cannot pursue separate civil lawsuits against their employers, even when the injuries result from intentional acts committed by coworkers. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights the broad scope of the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision and reinforces that workplace assault claims generally must proceed through the workers’ compensation system rather than traditional tort litigation. If you have been injured by a coworker or have questions regarding your rights under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, you should consult with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your available remedies.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, the plaintiff worked as a Senior Supplier Quality Engineer for the defendant medical technology company. During his employment, he alleged that he was subjected to repeated racial and national origin discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because he was a Black employee of Haitian descent. He further claimed that several managers made offensive racial remarks and failed to respond to his complaints regarding discriminatory treatment.

Allegedly, one of the plaintiff’s supervisors and the company’s Human Resources Manager confronted him at his workstation after making racially offensive comments. According to the complaint, the Human Resources Manager grabbed the plaintiff’s ear and earpiece, got into his face, and attempted to provoke a physical confrontation. At the same time, another manager allegedly stood by without intervening. The plaintiff later reported the incident to company management but asserted that no meaningful corrective action was taken. Continue reading →

Workers’ compensation insurance plays a vital role in protecting employees injured on construction projects while also reducing liability for property owners and contractors. Because Massachusetts law generally requires employers to maintain workers’ compensation coverage, disputes over whether a contractor has obtained the promised insurance can have significant legal and financial consequences. A recent Massachusetts decision illustrates how a contractor’s failure to satisfy contractual obligations regarding workers’ compensation insurance helped justify termination of a construction contract and supported liability under Massachusetts consumer protection law. If you have questions about workers’ compensation benefits or coverage, you should consult with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your rights.

Case Setting

Reportedly, the plaintiffs hired the defendant construction company to renovate their two-family residence in Watertown pursuant to a written contract priced at more than $100,000. As part of the agreement, the contractor expressly agreed to obtain commercial general liability insurance and workers’ compensation insurance covering both its own work and the work performed by subcontractors on the project. Because one of the homeowners worked in the insurance industry, insurance coverage was an especially important component of the agreement.

Allegedly, after the contract was signed and the plaintiffs paid an initial deposit of $30,300, they repeatedly requested documentation confirming the required insurance coverage. The contractor maintained that his company was exempt from maintaining workers’ compensation insurance because he was its sole employee but represented that subcontractors working on the project would nevertheless be properly insured. The plaintiffs remained dissatisfied with the documentation provided and questioned whether the contractual insurance requirements had been satisfied. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act generally provides the exclusive remedy for employees injured in the course of their employment. While this system guarantees benefits without requiring proof of fault, it also limits an employee’s ability to pursue civil lawsuits arising from workplace injuries. A recent Massachusetts decision explains an important exception to that rule, holding that claims against a coworker may proceed when the alleged misconduct was intentional and unrelated to the employer’s legitimate business interests. If you suffered harm in the workplace and are unsure whether workers’ compensation is your only remedy, you should consult with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to determine your legal options.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, the plaintiff served as the Chief Human Resources Officer for the Boston Water and Sewer Commission. She alleged that during her employment, she was subjected to ongoing harassment, discrimination based on her race, national origin, and sex, and retaliation after complaining about the conduct. She further claimed that one of the Commission’s senior attorneys intentionally interfered with her employment relationship through a sustained campaign of discriminatory and retaliatory conduct.

Allegedly, the plaintiff asserted numerous claims against the Commission and several individuals, including claims under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B, intentional interference with advantageous relations, and other tort theories. The defendant attorney moved to dismiss the intentional interference claim, arguing that it was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act because the alleged conduct arose during the course of employment. Continue reading →

Workers injured on the job often seek to recover compensation from parties they believe contributed to their injuries. While Massachusetts law permits claims against certain third parties, the Workers’ Compensation Act generally bars negligence lawsuits against co-employees who were acting within the course of their employment. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court demonstrates the broad scope of that protection and explains when co-employee immunity will prevent an injured worker from pursuing a separate tort claim. If you have suffered a workplace injury and have questions about whether additional claims may be available beyond workers’ compensation benefits, you should consult with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your rights.

History of the Case

Reportedly, the injured employee worked as a maintenance employee for a packaging company. While preparing a backhoe truck for use on company property, he was assigned to replace a tire on the vehicle. During the repair process, a multi-piece tire rim violently separated and struck him in the head. The injuries were catastrophic, requiring the removal of a substantial portion of his forehead, part of his brain, and one eye. As a result, he suffered permanent brain injuries and legal blindness.

Allegedly, the defendant served as the company’s vice president of operations and was also a shareholder. Years earlier, he had acquired the backhoe truck and arranged for its use in company operations. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant knew the vehicle’s multi-piece rims posed a serious danger but failed to provide adequate warnings, training, supervision, or safety equipment to employees expected to service the vehicle. Continue reading →

Massachusetts law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for exercising rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Nevertheless, employees who believe they were terminated after reporting a workplace injury must still present evidence showing that their injury claim or protected activity actually motivated the employer’s decision. A recent First Circuit decision demonstrates the challenges employees face when attempting to prove workers’ compensation retaliation. If you believe you were fired or otherwise punished after reporting a workplace injury, you should consult with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your legal options.

Case Setting

Reportedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant manufacturing company for several years and consistently received positive evaluations regarding the quality of his work. At the same time, however, company records reflected longstanding concerns regarding excessive tardiness and absenteeism. The plaintiff received warnings and counseling concerning attendance issues over multiple years.

Allegedly, the plaintiff performed physically demanding work involving the movement of large, heavy tables. Over time, he experienced back pain that he believed was related to his job duties. He raised concerns about the physical strain of the work and suggested equipment modifications that might reduce stress on his back. Continue reading →