Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

Arriving early for work does not automatically place an employee outside Massachusetts workers’ compensation law, even when the employee chooses an unsafe entrance. A recent Reviewing Board decision examined whether a kitchen worker’s fall while climbing a locked fence arose out of employment and whether serious and willful misconduct could bar benefits. Fault generally does not control the threshold question of work connection. If an insurer claims that your injury happened outside the course of employment, consult a skilled Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly about your rights.

The Early Arrival, Serious Injury, and Denial of the Claim

Reportedly, the employer operated a brewery and beer hall with several entrances. The kitchen door generally opened at 8:00 a.m., while workers with key cards could enter earlier. The employee prepared food, cleaned, and accepted deliveries. Although his shift started at 9:00 a.m. and a supervisor had told him not to arrive early, he sometimes began near 8:00 a.m. by using an open beer-garden gate. The employer paid all time recorded after he clocked in.

It is alleged that the employee arrived before 7:00 a.m. on September 16, 2022, found the gate locked, and tried to climb the fence. He fell about eight feet and fractured his right hip. The employee claimed Section 34 temporary total incapacity benefits and Sections 13 and 30 medical benefits. An administrative judge denied the claim at conference, and the employee appealed to a de novo hearing. The judge again denied the claim, finding that the climb arose from the employee’s desire to clock in two hours early rather than from his employment. The judge consequently did not decide the insurer’s Section 27 serious and willful misconduct defense. The employee appealed. Continue reading →

A workers’ compensation award can depend as much on the issues the parties preserve as on the evidence they introduce. In a recent Massachusetts decision, an insurer challenged an employee’s average weekly wage after previously stipulating to that figure, while both sides agreed that the permanent total disability rate required a small mathematical correction. The ruling shows why stipulations, hearing memoranda, and timely objections matter throughout a benefits case. If a workplace injury has left you unable to earn your former wages, speak with a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about protecting your claim and calculating the benefits available to you.

The Employee’s Injury and Claim for Benefits

Reportedly, the employee performed general construction work and supervisory duties for the employer. In January 2020, staging moved while the employee was nailing siding to a wall, causing him to fall about six feet onto concrete and a bush. He struck his head and suffered bleeding but continued working. Persistent pain later led him to a hospital, where he described landing on his right shoulder and hitting his head. The employee eventually sought workers’ compensation benefits arising from the accident.

It is alleged that an administrative judge issued a conference order awarding Section 34 temporary total incapacity benefits at $600 per week, based on a $1,000 average weekly wage, beginning June 24, 2021, together with medical benefits. The insurer appealed to a de novo hearing. The judge found a compensable injury, credited the employee’s continuing pain, and adopted medical opinions connecting the accident to head, neck, shoulder, and knee conditions. The judge found permanent and total incapacity, continued Section 34 benefits through June 20, 2024, and awarded Section 34A benefits at $666.70 per week thereafter. The insurer appealed to the Reviewing Board. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act gives injured employees no-fault benefits but limits common-law lawsuits arising from workplace injuries. Those limits can also influence claims against companies other than the direct employer. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court examined whether a subcontractor’s employee could pursue a general contractor for negligent hiring after seeking workers’ compensation benefits. If you suffered a serious jobsite injury, contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly to assess your benefits and possible claims against other responsible parties.

History of the Case

Reportedly, the defendant general contractor subcontracted roofing work at a Massachusetts resort to the plaintiff’s employer. Their agreement placed the project under the defendant’s general direction but left the means and methods to the employer. The employer supplied fall-protection equipment, directed the plaintiff’s daily work, and had received prior federal citations involving inadequate fall protection.

It is alleged that the plaintiff unclipped his harness while moving shingles in October 2021 because his safety line was too short. He slipped before attaching to another line and fell from the roof, suffering life-threatening injuries. He filed a workers’ compensation claim through the employer’s insurer, which the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board administered. He also sued the defendant in Massachusetts for negligence and negligent hiring. Continue reading →

Ignoring a workers’ compensation lawsuit will not make the financial exposure disappear. The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act generally requires employers to maintain insurance so employees can receive benefits after job-related injuries, and the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund may pursue reimbursement when it pays a claim for an uninsured employer. A recent Massachusetts judgment shows how quickly damages, legal fees, costs, and interest can accumulate when an employer fails to respond. If you face a benefit, coverage, or trust-fund reimbursement dispute, contact a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney now to protect your rights and meet approaching deadlines.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, the plaintiff trust fund filed a civil complaint against the defendant employer on May 15, 2023. The plaintiff sought to recover money connected to an injured worker’s claim, including damages, the injured claimant’s attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses incurred in the administrative and civil proceedings.

It is reported that the summons and complaint were properly served on the defendant, but the defendant filed no answer or other defense. The clerk entered a default on October 3, 2023. The defendant made no filing and took no further action after that entry. The plaintiff then requested a default judgment and an assessment of damages under Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). The court considered the complaint and an affidavit submitted as an exhibit to the damages motion. Continue reading →

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 →