Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

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 →

When a worker is injured or killed while performing duties on a military installation, determining the proper source of compensation can be complex. In some circumstances, federal workers’ compensation statutes provide the exclusive remedy, preventing injured workers or their families from pursuing separate negligence claims against employers. A recent First Circuit decision demonstrates how these federal laws can shield employers from civil liability even in tragic workplace accident cases. If you have questions about the interaction between workers’ compensation benefits and workplace injury lawsuits, you should consult with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your rights.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the decedent worked as an engine shop supervisor for an employer retained by the United States Navy to perform work at a naval station. While conducting a test on newly installed equipment, an explosion occurred, causing severe burns over a substantial portion of his body. He remained hospitalized for several weeks before ultimately succumbing to his injuries.

Reportedly, the employer maintained workers’ compensation and employer liability insurance in accordance with its contractual obligations with the Navy. Following the decedent’s death, benefits were paid to his surviving family members through that insurance coverage. Continue reading →

Massachusetts workers often assume that if they are injured while performing job duties, they will automatically qualify for workers’ compensation benefits. However, whether a worker is legally considered an employee can significantly affect eligibility for benefits. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights the distinction between employees and independent contractors and explains why that classification remains critical in workers’ compensation claims. If you were injured while working and have questions regarding your employment status or your right to benefits, you should speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

Facts and Procedural History of the Case

Reportedly, the claimant began working as a newspaper delivery agent for a company that provided home delivery services for newspaper publishers. She signed contracts identifying her as an independent contractor and used her own vehicle to perform deliveries. She was permitted to determine the order and timing of deliveries, provided they were completed by specified deadlines. She could also hire assistants, subcontract her work, deliver items for other businesses, purchase her own insurance, and file taxes as an independent contractor. Continue reading →

Disputes over workers’ compensation benefits often extend beyond questions of injury and into the calculation and administration of payments, particularly when employees believe insurers have undervalued their claims. While injured workers may seek to challenge such practices through broader consumer protection laws, courts must determine whether those claims fall within the exclusive framework of workers’ compensation statutes. A recent Massachusetts decision addressed whether employees can pursue claims for unfair or deceptive practices against insurers in court, or whether such disputes must remain within the workers’ compensation system. If you are facing issues related to benefit calculations or claim handling, you should consider consulting a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand the proper avenues for relief.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiffs were employees who sustained injuries while working on a large-scale construction project and subsequently received workers’ compensation benefits through the defendant insurer. The plaintiffs contended that the benefits they received were improperly calculated because certain fringe benefits were excluded from the determination of their average weekly wages.

It is alleged that the plaintiffs believed the defendant insurer engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by misrepresenting the amount of benefits owed, failing to include additional compensation components, and delaying proper payment. The plaintiffs further claimed that these actions forced them to pursue additional proceedings to obtain the benefits they believed were due. Continue reading →