Published on: |

Workplace disputes involving alleged injuries, emotional harm, and adverse employment actions often implicate the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, particularly its exclusivity provisions. Employees may attempt to pursue civil claims for emotional distress or related harms, but courts must determine whether those claims fall within the scope of workers’ compensation, thereby barring separate lawsuits. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights how these principles operate, emphasizing that even when a workers’ compensation claim is denied, the statutory framework may still preclude certain tort claims. If you have experienced workplace injury or retaliation, you should consider speaking with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to evaluate your legal options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff was employed by a municipal entity for decades and later claimed that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, retaliation, and discriminatory treatment by her supervisor and other officials. She asserted that workplace conditions deteriorated after she raised concerns about health hazards and management practices.

It is alleged that the plaintiff experienced significant workplace stress and sought medical leave, including leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, due to the impact of her working conditions on her health. She further claimed that her supervisor reduced her responsibilities, disclosed private medical information, and pressured her toward resignation. 

Published on: |

Workplace injury claims and retaliation protections often depend on whether an employee falls within the scope of a state’s workers’ compensation statute. While many employees assume that workplace protections automatically apply, statutory exclusions can significantly limit both benefits and legal remedies. A recent Massachusetts Superior Court decision illustrates how classification as a domestic worker can preclude recovery under workers’ compensation retaliation laws, even where a workplace injury and termination closely follow one another. If you have suffered a workplace injury or believe you were retaliated against for asserting your rights, you should consider speaking with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to evaluate your legal options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a nanny responsible for caring for children in a private household, along with performing related domestic duties such as cleaning, organizing, and managing household tasks associated with childcare. During her employment, she was bitten twice by a trained protection dog kept at the residence.

It is alleged that following the second incident, the plaintiff sought information regarding the defendant’s workers’ compensation insurance coverage in connection with her injuries. Shortly after making that inquiry, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated, prompting her to file a lawsuit asserting wrongful termination in violation of a state workers’ compensation retaliation statute. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workplace disputes often raise important questions about the intersection of employment law and workers’ compensation, particularly when an employee alleges both discriminatory treatment and work-related injury. Courts frequently must determine whether certain claims fall within the exclusive remedy provisions of workers’ compensation statutes or may proceed as separate civil actions. A recent Massachusetts ruling highlights how these issues are resolved and underscores the importance of properly framing claims arising from workplace conditions and injuries. If you have suffered harm in the course of your employment, you should consider speaking with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your rights and available remedies.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff was employed by the defendants as an assistant property manager and claimed that he experienced discriminatory treatment and stressful working conditions during his employment. He asserted that his supervisor failed to address inappropriate conduct and subjected him to unfair criticism, contributing to a hostile workplace environment.

It is alleged that the plaintiff experienced a significant health episode during his employment, including elevated blood sugar levels that he attributed to the stress of his work environment. He ultimately resigned from his position but continued to reside at a property owned or managed by the defendants. Continue reading →

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 →