Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

An injured worker may remain unable to work even after the statutory period for temporary total incapacity benefits ends. What happens next can have a major effect on the household budget. A recent Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents Reviewing Board decision explains why a judge cannot find that a worker has no capacity to earn wages and then calculate partial incapacity benefits as though that worker could earn a full-time wage. If your benefits are about to change, ask a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to review both the medical findings and the proposed weekly rate.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, an airline employee tripped over a golf bag at work, fell backward, and used her arm to keep her head from striking the ground. She later reported continuing neck and shoulder symptoms. The insurer paid temporary total incapacity benefits for a period, then stopped. The employee sought their resumption, and an administrative judge heard evidence about her medical condition and ability to work.

Allegedly, the judge credited the employee’s account of her limitations and adopted several medical opinions. The judge found that the work injury continued to cause her symptoms and that she remained totally incapacitated from gainful employment. The judge awarded temporary total benefits through the end of the available statutory period. For the period after that, however, the judge assigned her an earning capacity of $600 per week and awarded only $28.63 per week in partial incapacity benefits. Both sides appealed: the insurer disputed causation and total incapacity, while the employee challenged the assumed earning capacity.

Continue reading →

An injured worker may discover that the company paying their wages never purchased workers’ compensation insurance. That discovery can make a claim feel hopeless, especially when several businesses participated in the job. In certain circumstances, Massachusetts law can place responsibility on an insurer higher in the contracting chain. A recent Reviewing Board decision involving a truck driver shows how that protection can operate and why a separate injury settlement does not automatically erase a benefit award. If coverage is disputed after a workplace accident, have an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney examine every business and insurer involved.

Case Setting

Reportedly, a driver working for an uninsured subcontractor lost control of a tractor-trailer after a collision on a Massachusetts highway. The truck rolled onto its side, and the driver injured his shoulder and hand. The subcontractor’s lack of coverage brought the insurer for another company in the contracting arrangement into the workers’ compensation case under section 18 of the Massachusetts statute. The Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund and that insurer disputed liability and benefits on several grounds.

Allegedly, an administrative judge ordered the higher-tier company’s insurer to pay a closed period of temporary total incapacity benefits, followed by partial incapacity benefits and medical expenses. The driver had also brought a civil claim against the other motorist involved in the crash. That claim settled before the workers’ compensation hearing. The hearing record disclosed the settlement amount, but it did not establish how the money was allocated among the driver’s claim, a family member’s claim, legal fees, and other components.

Continue reading →

Someone who cannot return to a physically demanding job may still answer calls, prepare estimates, or supervise a small business. Those activities raise two different questions in a Massachusetts workers’ compensation claim: how much the worker can earn, and whether all earnings were accurately reported. A recent Reviewing Board decision sent a case back for answers to both. If you receive weekly benefits while doing any paid work, including self-employment, seek legal guidance about reporting that work and how it may affect your benefits.

Factual History and Procedural Setting

Reportedly, a municipal employee hurt his back while lifting at work. He also operated a seasonal irrigation business and sometimes plowed snow. After the injury, he continued some lighter tasks for his company and hired others for physical installation work. Medical testing showed a disc problem, and he received treatment. He sought total benefits for one period, partial benefits thereafter, and payment of medical expenses.

Allegedly, the self-insurer presented bank and business records, an employee earnings report, and surveillance evidence. The worker acknowledged that he had received snowplowing income that he had not reported. An administrative judge found that he could perform some light work, assigned a $600 weekly earning capacity, awarded partial incapacity and medical benefits, and rejected the insurer’s fraud claim. The insurer appealed both the earning-capacity finding and the rejection of its allegation that the worker had failed to report income properly.

Continue reading →

Filing a workers’ compensation claim often begins with a short medical note, not a complete report. Massachusetts regulations set requirements for documents submitted with claims for weekly incapacity benefits, but a recent Reviewing Board decision shows why the timing of an objection matters. The ruling also illustrates the difference between the documents needed to start a claim and the evidence considered at a hearing. If an insurer challenges your claim over paperwork, speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney before assuming the case is over.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, a correction officer injured his right knee while restraining an inmate and underwent surgery. He later returned to full duty. About two years later, he felt a pop in the same knee while running to an emergency at a different facility. After another return to work, increasing pain made stairs and routine duties difficult. A treating physician eventually took him out of work, and another surgeon recommended a knee replacement.

Allegedly, the officer filed benefit claims involving both injury dates. He attached a one-page form signed by his treating physician, with a check mark next to the statement that he could not work at that time. The Department of Industrial Accidents accepted the claims for processing. Following a hearing, an administrative judge awarded temporary total incapacity and medical benefits based on the earlier injury. The self-insurer appealed, arguing that the form did not satisfy the filing regulation and that the entire claim should have been dismissed.

Continue reading →

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 →