Published on: |

Employment discrimination claims frequently arise at the intersection of disability law and workers’ compensation benefits, particularly when an employee seeks workplace protections after receiving disability payments. Courts must balance statutory anti-discrimination principles with representations made in separate benefit proceedings. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court addresses whether an employee who received workers’ compensation benefits for temporary total disability may still pursue a disability discrimination claim under Massachusetts law. If you are dealing with a workers’ compensation issue in Massachusetts, it may be helpful to speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can evaluate your options and protect your rights.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant hospital in a patient admitting role that required frequent keyboarding and other repetitive hand movements. Over several years, the plaintiff experienced work-related physical conditions affecting the upper extremities, neck, and back, which were believed to be associated with computer use. In response, the defendant implemented various ergonomic modifications and adjusted the plaintiff’s work environment in an effort to reduce strain.

It is alleged that the plaintiff later took multiple leave of absences due to those conditions and received workers’ compensation benefits for temporary total disability during those periods. While on leave, the plaintiff underwent medical treatment, including surgery, and continued to report ongoing pain that limited the ability to perform job duties involving repetitive tasks. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workplace fatalities occurring on or near navigable waters often raise complex questions about which legal remedies are available to surviving family members. In maritime settings, those questions frequently intersect with workers’ compensation statutes and federal maritime law, creating uncertainty about whether negligence claims may proceed alongside statutory benefit schemes. A recent decision directly addressed this issue, clarifying the scope of wrongful death remedies under general maritime law and how they coexist with maritime workers’ compensation frameworks. If you have questions about work-related injuries or fatalities in maritime settings, you should consider speaking with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to better understand your legal options.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the decedent was employed by a subcontractor performing sandblasting work aboard a vessel docked in navigable waters of the United States. While carrying out assigned duties, the decedent sustained serious injuries aboard the vessel and died the following day as a result of those injuries.

It is alleged that the work was performed under a layered subcontracting arrangement involving multiple entities, including the defendant shipbuilding company. The plaintiff, acting as the personal representative of the estate, asserted that the fatal injuries were caused by negligent conduct attributable to the defendant and another subcontractor involved in the work. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers’ compensation statutes do more than provide wage replacement and medical benefits. In certain circumstances, they also protect an injured employee’s right to be rehired when suitable work becomes available. Disputes often arise when an employer resists rehiring a former employee after a compensable injury, particularly where prior litigation or labor agreements complicate the employment relationship. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court highlights how courts enforce the workers’ compensation hiring preference statute and the broad equitable powers available to ensure compliance. If you are seeking reemployment after a work-related injury in Massachusetts, you should consider consulting with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand how these protections apply.

Case History

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant community college for approximately two decades in campus security and police roles, eventually attaining a supervisory position. After filing internal and administrative complaints alleging workplace misconduct, the plaintiff experienced a stress-related medical event and took medical leave from employment.

It is alleged that, when the plaintiff attempted to return to work, the defendant terminated employment on the grounds that adequate medical documentation had not been provided. An arbitrator later upheld the termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Several years later, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff on separate employment discrimination claims arising from the earlier events. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers’ compensation claims can have lasting consequences beyond the payment of benefits, particularly when an employee returns to work after a serious injury and later faces discipline or termination. Employers may assert safety or performance reasons for an adverse action, while employees may question whether concerns about future workers’ compensation exposure influenced the decision. A recent ruling from a Massachusetts court examines this tension and clarifies how workers’ compensation considerations may intersect with disability discrimination claims under state law. If you believe your work-related injury played a role in a termination decision, you should consider speaking with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your rights.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a commercial truck driver and suffered a serious back injury while performing job duties. The injury required surgery and resulted in an extended period away from work, during which the plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits paid by the defendant.

It is alleged that the plaintiff later returned to full-time work and resumed operating heavy equipment. Approximately two months after returning, the plaintiff was involved in a workplace incident while unloading a truck at a landfill when the vehicle tipped over. The plaintiff was not injured in the incident, but the equipment sustained damage. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workplace injuries often raise complex questions about who may be held legally responsible, particularly when temporary staffing arrangements and multiple contractors are involved. Disputes frequently arise over whether an injured worker may pursue civil claims in addition to receiving workers’ compensation benefits. A recent Massachusetts decision illustrates how broadly courts may enforce contractual waivers tied to workers’ compensation coverage and how those waivers can bar both negligence and intentional tort claims arising from on-the-job injuries. If you have questions about a workplace injury or a potential claim in Massachusetts, it is wise to speak with an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can evaluate your rights and obligations under the law.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff was employed by a temporary staffing agency as a carpenter and signed an employment agreement before beginning his assignment. The agreement included a waiver of liability provision stating that, to the extent permitted by law, the employee waived the right to bring claims against the staffing agency’s client and the client’s customers for injuries arising out of the employment, and agreed to look solely to the staffing agency and its insurer for compensation for work-related injuries.

It is alleged that the staffing agency assigned the plaintiff to work at a construction project where one defendant served as the general contractor and another defendant served as the framing subcontractor. Workers at the site received daily direction from personnel associated with the subcontractor. Several days into the assignment, a physical altercation occurred at the jobsite during working hours, during which an employee of the subcontractor struck the plaintiff. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers’ compensation claims frequently intersect with third-party liability and insurance disputes, particularly when an injured employee receives benefits, and a separate insurer may bear responsibility for reimbursement. In those situations, insurers often resolve reimbursement obligations through intercompany arbitration rather than direct litigation. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court highlights how strictly courts enforce deadlines and procedural rules when an insurer seeks to challenge an arbitration award tied to workers’ compensation benefits. If you have questions about workers’ compensation disputes or related insurance litigation in Massachusetts, you should consider speaking with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, a motor vehicle accident occurred in March 2023 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, involving two drivers. One driver was insured under an automobile policy issued by the plaintiff insurer, while the other driver sustained injuries in the course of employment and received workers’ compensation benefits from the defendant insurer. As a result of the injury, the defendant insurer paid workers’ compensation benefits to or on behalf of the injured employee.

It is alleged that, in June 2023, the defendant insurer asserted a workers’ compensation lien against the plaintiff insurer seeking reimbursement for benefits paid in connection with the accident. The lien reflected medical and related expenses arising from the work-related injury, consistent with the statutory framework that allows workers’ compensation carriers to recover benefits when a third party may be liable. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Employment disputes involving allegations of discrimination and retaliation often hinge on whether an employee’s complaint contains enough factual detail to proceed beyond the earliest stages of litigation. Federal courts regularly dismiss claims that describe uncomfortable or unfair workplace dynamics but fail to plausibly connect those experiences to unlawful conduct under governing statutes. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court illustrates the demanding nature of federal pleading standards, particularly in cases involving allegations of gender discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower-related termination. If you have questions about workplace retaliation or termination in Massachusetts, you should consider speaking with an experienced Massachusetts employment and workers’ compensation attorney to assess your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff was hired by the defendant as a senior data architect and worked remotely from Massachusetts for a company headquartered outside the state. The plaintiff was the only woman working in a technical role under her direct supervisor and was responsible for evaluating database security and compliance with federal health information privacy laws. Shortly after beginning her employment, she conducted a security audit that identified significant deficiencies and potential regulatory risks.

It is alleged that the plaintiff promptly reported the failed audit and her concerns to her supervisor and other technical leaders. According to the complaint, those individuals reacted negatively to her findings, responding with dismissiveness and hostility. The plaintiff asserted that she was subjected to ridicule and gender-based comments from male coworkers, including being labeled with derogatory terms during meetings, and that management failed to intervene or provide support. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Employees who suffer workplace injuries often rely on statutory systems to obtain medical care and wage replacement. When an adverse employment action follows an injury report, disputes may arise over whether the employer acted lawfully or retaliated against the employee for exercising protected rights. A recent decision from a federal court addresses these concerns and clarifies how courts should evaluate causation and pretext at the summary judgment stage. If you have questions about retaliation or workers’ compensation-related employment actions, you should consult a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to assess your available legal options.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant airline as a cross-trained agent responsible for customer service, operations, and ramp duties at an airport. During a work shift, the plaintiff sustained a head injury when an aircraft cabin door malfunctioned and struck him. A pilot prepared an internal incident report attributing the accident to maintenance failures, and the plaintiff informed a supervisor of the incident before completing his shift and seeking hospital treatment.

It is alleged that, despite the work-related nature of the injury, the defendant did not promptly provide the documentation necessary for the plaintiff to seek treatment through the Commonwealth workers’ compensation system. Instead, the plaintiff was told to rely on personal insurance, which delayed his formal report to the State Insurance Fund. Over time, the plaintiff experienced worsening symptoms, including neck pain and numbness, leading to diagnostic testing and eventual surgery. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Injured employees pursuing workers’ compensation claims must follow specific statutory procedures; if they fail to do so, it can jeopardize their ability to obtain benefits. When a claim involves an uninsured employer, the process becomes even more complicated. A recent Massachusetts ruling illustrates how the courts address noncompliance with procedural obligations and the consequences of prolonged failure to participate in the claims process. If you are pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to determine your rights and obligations.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the employee worked for the employer for a brief period in 2019 and claimed that she fell down a staircase at work on June 1, injuring her back, tailbone, and other areas. The employee did not report the fall to the employer at the time, and no other employee documented the incident. The next day, the employee sought treatment at a medical clinic but did not disclose that she had fallen at work. In the weeks and months that followed, she sought additional treatment but did not identify the location of the alleged fall or initially provide consistent dates for when it occurred.

It is alleged that, because the employer did not maintain valid workers’ compensation insurance, the employee filed a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund. The trust fund moved to join the employer, and the employee did not oppose the joinder. The employer challenged liability, average weekly wage, disability, and causal relationship. The employer then sought discovery and arranged multiple medical examinations, including an impartial examination pursuant to G. L. c. 152, § 11A (2). The employee did not respond to the discovery requests and failed to appear for the scheduled impartial examination, prompting the employer to file a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Airline employees face certain risks in the course of their duties, particularly during turbulent flights, which can turn routine tasks into hazardous situations. When worker injuries occur during flights, whether the injured employee is eligible for workers’ compensation benefits often hinges on the credibility of the employee’s testimony and the medical evidence presented. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court highlights how administrative judges evaluate causation in such cases and clarifies the deference afforded to credibility findings and the weighing of medical testimony. If you were injured on the job, speaking with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help ensure that your rights are protected throughout the claims process.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the employee worked as a flight attendant for the employer and claimed that he injured his hand during a turbulent flight between Florida and Massachusetts when a metal food cart tilted backwards and crushed his right hand. The employee was treated several days later and was diagnosed with a fracture of the fourth metacarpal bone. The matter proceeded to a hearing before an administrative judge, who considered testimony from the employee, deposition testimony from medical providers, and documentary evidence. The judge found the employee credible and concluded that the fracture was caused by the workplace incident involving the food cart.

It is alleged that the insurer appealed, arguing that the employee did not establish causation because the medical testimony did not explicitly confirm that the cart incident caused the fracture. The insurer pointed to evidence that the employee worked regular shifts after the incident and that he reportedly told a nurse practitioner that he hurt his hand playing basketball. The insurer relied heavily on the testimony of the treating physician, who stated that the employee’s injury could have involved both a workplace event and a sports-related event. The administrative judge, however, determined that the employee never reported that he injured his hand playing basketball and accepted the employee’s explanation that he had merely attempted to test his hand strength by trying to palm a basketball after the injury. Continue reading →