Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

Massachusetts law requires employers to provide or obtain workers’ compensation insurance. If they fail to do so, they may face significant penalties, including debarment or the cessation of all business operations. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed the basis for debarment in a matter in which an employer argued that the Commonwealth lacked justification for imposing the penalty. If you were hurt at work and have questions about your rights with regard to workers’ compensation benefits, it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Case Background

It is reported that a Department of Industrial Accidents investigator was working in the area of the employer’s facility and decided to visit the business. Upon doing so, it discovered that the employer’s workers’ compensation policy was canceled. As such, the investigator issued a stop work order. The employer, who stated he was unaware the policy had been canceled, had coverage reinstated the following day.

Allegedly, the Department of Industrial Accidents nonetheless stated that debarment was nondiscretionary and automatic under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. The employer appealed the stop work order, but the court affirmed the Department’s decision. The employer then appealed. Continue reading →

While some workplace injuries cause immediate symptoms, others do not cause pain until well after the injury occurred. In such instances, it can be difficult to prove that the injury is compensable under the Workers Compensation Act. The key inquiry in cases involving enduring injuries is whether the harm in question is work-related. Recently, a Massachusetts court assessed what evidence is needed to establish a causal relationship between an industrial accident and a claimant’s harm in a matter in which it ultimately found in favor of the claimant. If you sustained injuries in the workplace, you could be owed benefits, and you should meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the claimant suffered an injury while working as a heavy equipment mechanic. The injury caused a stabbing pain in the claimant’s shoulders, neck, and upper back. He received a cortisone shot and underwent surgery for his right shoulder, but his pain continued. The claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim, which he ultimately settled. He continued to feel bilateral pain in his shoulders and filed a second claim for medical benefits.

Allegedly, a physician performed an IME on the claimant and found that his pain was secondary to his work injury, noting he did not report shoulder pain until one year after the injury occurred. Following a hearing, the administrative judge found that the claimant’s shoulder injury was causally related to the subject accident and ordered the employer’s insurer to pay all reasonable medical expenses associated with the injury. The insurer appealed, and the reviewing board reversed the administrative judge’s decision. The claimant then appealed. Continue reading →

It is not uncommon for people to suffer injuries in slip-and-fall accidents in the workplace. People who sustain such harm may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. If it is later determined that their injuries have resolved, however, their benefits may be discontinued. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed grounds for discontinuing disability benefits in a case in which it denied a workers’ appeal. If you were hurt while working, it is advisable to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your potential recovery of benefits.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the claimant suffered an injury while working for the employer. Specifically, she sustained a back strain, ankle sprain, and hip contusion when she slipped and fell on a throw rug. Her employer accepted liability for her injury and began paying her temporary incapacity benefits. One year later, the employer moved to discontinue the benefits. An administrative judge denied the request, after which the employer appealed.

It is reported that the claimant then submitted to an IME; the doctor found that the claimant had fully recovered from her work injuries. The administrative judge found the claimant’s injuries to be medically complicated, however, and allowed the parties to offer additional medical evidence. Ultimately, the court found in favor of the employer. The claimant then appealed. Continue reading →

The two key components of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) are the protections it offers employers who suffer injuries while working and the prohibitions against those same employees seeking damages in tort actions against their employers. The courts broadly construe the exclusivity provision of the Act and will dismiss any claim that runs afoul of the provision, as shown in a recent Massachusetts case. If you sustained losses due to a workplace injury, it is in your best interest to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer about your options for seeking redress.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff worked for the defendant at its car dealership. The plaintiff, who worked as a salesperson, suffered injuries when his immediate supervisor assaulted him. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against his supervisor and the defendant, seeking compensation for his harm. As to the defendant, he asserted it was vicariously liable for the acts of the supervisor; he set forth negligent hiring and supervision claims against the defendant as well. Following discovery, the defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that they were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Claims Barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act

The exclusivity provision is both broadly construed and the keystone of the Act. The court explained that the legislature has had ample chances to narrow the scope of the provision over the years but has declined to do so. Continue reading →

People who suffer injuries in workplace accidents can often recover benefits pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). While the Act typically prohibits them from pursuing civil actions against their employers for their injuries, they may be able to recover damages from third parties. Notably, employees have the right to seek workers’ compensation benefits and redress in tort actions against third parties regardless of their immigration status in this Country, as explained in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt in an accident while working, it is in your best interest to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to determine your rights as soon as possible.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff suffered injuries when he fell from a ladder while working on the roof of a three-story residential building. Specifically, he suffered fractures to the skull, dissection of the vertebral artery, hematomas of the brain, and other harm. Due to the severity of his injuries, he was unable to work. He subsequently sought and received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer’s insurer.

It is reported that the plaintiff then filed tort claims against numerous defendants, alleging their negligence brought about his harm. During a deposition, the defense attorney asked the plaintiff about his immigration status. The plaintiff declined to answer, and the defendants then moved to compel him to submit to questioning about his immigration status. Continue reading →

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), employers have an obligation to provide workers’ compensation benefits to employees that suffer injuries while working. IN exchange for the right to recover such benefits, however, employees are precluded from filing civil claims seeking damages for personal injuries against their employers. The Massachusetts courts strictly construe the exclusivity provisions of the Act and will dismiss any claims barred by the exclusivity provision, as illustrated in a recent Massachusetts opinion. If you were injured in a work-related activity, you could be owed benefits, and it would be advantageous for you to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was diagnosed with legionnaire’s disease in December 2014 because of exposure to contaminated water in the workplace following an industrial accident in which a compressor exploded, distributing water vapor and dust into the air. His illness was promptly reported to the Massachusetts Department of Health and Public Safety (MDHPS), and he submitted a claim to the Department of Industrial Accidents.

The plaintiff alleged that his employer, the MDHPS, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) were required to conduct an investigation which meant, in part, that they had to collect and analyze water samples but failed to do so. As such, he asserted claims against them in a civil lawsuit, arguing that they failed to protect his safety and that of his coworkers and violated his civil rights. The defendant employer moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, arguing that they were barred by the Act. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) grants employees the right to seek benefits if they are hurt at work and protects them from retaliation for asserting that right. As such, employers that attempt to retaliate against employees for seeking workers’ compensation benefits may face civil consequences. Employees asserting retaliation claims must demonstrate that their employers took adverse action against them due to the fact that they sought workers’ compensation benefits and not for some other reason; if they cannot meet this burden, their claims could be dismissed, as shown in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you suffered injuries at work, it is important to understand your rights, and it is wise to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff worked for the defendant as a postal employee. He suffered harm in an accident that occurred in 2010 and filed a workers’ compensation claim, asserting that his injuries were work-related. He was terminated a few days after he filed his claim, and his claim was ultimately denied. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, arguing, among other things, that he was terminated in retaliation for seeking workers’ compensation benefits. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss his lawsuit on the grounds that he failed to set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate cause for relief. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff appealed.

Proving a Workers’ Compensation Retaliation Claim

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. In doing so, the court explained that the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant refused to process his workers’ compensation papers in retaliation for exercising a protected right lacked merit for two reasons. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) affords employees injured in the course and scope of their work the right to recover workers’ compensation benefits. It is not uncommon for employers to deny claims for workers’ compensation benefits, however. Fortunately, the law permits employees whose workers’ compensation claims have been denied to seek a review of the decision via an appellate process. If they pursue an appeal without justification, however, their actions may have negative consequences, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts opinion. If you were hurt at work, you could be owed workers’ compensation benefits, and it is advisable to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to determine your potential claims.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that a fee dispute arose between attorneys who represented the employee in connection with a workers’ compensation claim before the Department of Industrial Accidents. The employee and the insurer entered into a lump sum settlement agreement in which the insurer agreed to pay the employee $50,000; approximately $16,000 of the award was set aside for costs and attorney’s fees.

It is reported that the two attorneys that represented the employee could not resolve how the attorney’s fees should be divided between them and filed a third-party claim with an administrative judge. The first attorney moved for recusal of the judge, claiming bias. The judge denied the motion and ordered the insurer to release the funds to the attorneys. The first attorney appealed, again claiming bias. The review board affirmed the decision and held that the appeal lacked reasonable grounds and that there was no justification for the attorney’s conduct. It subsequently ordered the first attorney to pay the second attorney the cost of the appellate proceeding. The first attorney once again appealed. Continue reading →

It is well-established that the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) supplants an employee’s right to pursue civil claims against their employer for harm that arises in the workplace with the right to recover workers’ compensation benefits for said harm. It is not always clear, however, what claims the exclusivity provision of the Act actually prohibits. Recently, a Massachusetts court analyzed the scope of the provision in a case in which it ultimately found that the Act barred the plaintiff’s claims. If you suffered a physical or mental injury because of conditions you encountered in the workplace, it is prudent to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to discuss what steps you should take to protect your interests.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant, her employer, seeking damages for harm caused by the conditions of her employment, which she alleged were unlawful. She asserted six causes of action against the defendant, including two emotional distress claims. The defendant moved for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Conduct that Occurs Within the Scope of the Employment

In its motion to dismiss, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s emotional distress claims were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act. In response, the plaintiff countered that the conduct that she complained of in her complaint did not fall within the scope of employment, and as such, the exclusivity provision of the Act did not preclude her claims. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted that intentional torts that fail to further the interests of an employer do not fall within the scope of employment, and directing an employee to engage in illegal activity certainly cannot further an employer’s interests. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) prohibits people from pursuing civil claims against their employer for harm suffered in the workplace that is compensable under the terms of the Act. Notably, the Act not only bars injured employees from seeking claims against their employers but also from seeking compensation for harm caused by their co-workers. The scope of the exclusivity provision of the Act was the focus of an opinion recently issued by a Massachusetts court in which it ultimately found that the Act barred the plaintiff’s claims. If you were hurt in the workplace due to the acts of a co-worker, you should meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to assess what benefits you may be owed.

Factual Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who is a black woman in her late fifties, worked as a detective for a city police department. In 2010, she was transferred to a human trafficking unit, and the defendant became her immediate supervisor. The defendant repeatedly engaged in acts that were detrimental to the plaintiff’s career and reported that she did not like her and did not want to work with her. In 2017, the plaintiff filed a formal harassment and hostile work environment claim against the defendant in the internal affairs division of her department. The division did not adequately address her claims, which prompted her to file a civil lawsuit against the defendant, asserting discrimination and retaliation claims, and claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.

Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Tortious Acts

In her motion to dismiss, the defendant argued, among other things, that the exclusivity provision of the Act precluded the plaintiff from pursuing intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against her. The court found the defendant’s arguments persuasive and granted her motion to dismiss with regard to the plaintiff’s emotional distress claims. Continue reading →