Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

Generally, employers in Massachusetts carry workers’ compensation coverage to provide benefits for any employees who sustain injuries on the job. If employers fail to comply with the terms of their workers’ compensation policies, though, they may be canceled. A policy cannot be canceled without adequate notice, however, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt at work, it is in your best interest to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to assess what benefits you may be able to recover.

Case History

It is alleged that the insurer attempted to cancel a voluntary policy of workers’ compensation insurance issued to the employer due to nonpayment of the premium. The employer never receive notice of the cancellation, however. Subsequently, the employee suffered an injury after the attempted cancellation. Under the assumption that the policy was not in force, he then sought and obtained benefits from the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund. The Trust Fund later sought to add the employer to the proceedings, which resulted in an evidentiary hearing to determine the cancellation’s validity.

It is reported that an administrative judge conducted a hearing and concluded that the attempted cancellation was ineffective, holding the insurer liable for any benefits paid to the employee. The decision was subsequently affirmed by the board in a split decision. The insurer appealed. Continue reading →

It is not uncommon for people who are hurt on the job to ultimately resolve their workers’ compensation claims via settlement agreements. Generally, such agreements will not be set aside, with few exceptions, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you were injured at work, you may be owed benefits, and it is smart to meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff, a correction officer, was injured while performing duties at work, which led to them receiving workers’ compensation benefits from their self-insured employer, due to a permanent disability. Additionally, the plaintiff was awarded accidental disability retirement benefits by the State Board of Retirement, although these ADR benefits were offset by the workers’ compensation benefits received by the plaintiff. Before reaching a lump sum settlement, the plaintiff received combined workers’ compensation and ADR benefits amounting to about $4,300 per month.

Allegedly, the plaintiff entered into a lump sum settlement to end their workers’ compensation claim for a $10,000 payment. Following the settlement, they were only eligible to receive ADR benefits, which totaled about $2,500 per month. The discrepancy in these benefit amounts resulted from the distinct calculation methods used by the workers’ compensation and ADR systems. Thus, the plaintiff sought rescission of the lump sum settlement agreement on the basis of mutual mistake of fact. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act grants injured employees the opportunity to seek compensation for workplace injuries, with the trade-off being the forfeiture of their ability to pursue tort claims against their employer due to the Act’s exclusivity provision. As explained in a recent Massachusetts ruling, this exclusivity provision not only applies to employees who received workers’ compensation claims under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), but also to those who received such benefits under similar Acts in other states. If you were hurt in a workplace accident, it is advisable to consult with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can guide you through the available avenues for seeking benefits.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff sustained severe leg injuries when a deteriorated garage wall collapsed on him while he was on the residential property of the defendant. The defendant had hired the plaintiff’s employer, a landscaping company, to demolish and remove her garage. Following his injuries, the plaintiff filed for workers’ compensation benefits in Rhode Island, where he resided.

Reportedly, after initially being denied benefits by the landscaping company’s insurer, the plaintiff and landscaping company reached a settlement in Rhode Island for a lump-sum payment of $19,000. As part of this settlement, the plaintiff released the landscaping company and its insurer from further liability. The settlement did not expressly cover one of landscaping company’s principals. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit in Massachusetts against the defendant and the landscaping company’s principal. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the court granted their motion. Continue reading →

People who are hurt while they are working generally can recover workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). In some instances, they may be able to recover accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits as well. The receipt of ADR benefits may impact their right to workers’ compensation benefits, however, and it is important for them to understand the implications of accepting such additional benefits. As discussed in a recent Massachusetts case, rescinding agreements for ADR benefits can be challenging. If you sustained injuries at work, you could be owed benefits, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a correction officer, had sustained a workplace injury in September 1990 and was receiving workers’ compensation benefits from the defendant, his self-insured employer, due to a permanent disability. Subsequently, he was also granted accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits by the State Board of Retirement. His ADR benefits were offset by the concurrent receipt of workers’ compensation benefits, resulting in a combined monthly sum of $4,340.28. However, in June 2009, a lump sum settlement was reached, terminating his workers’ compensation claim in exchange for a one-time payment of $10,000. Subsequently, the plaintiff became eligible solely for ADR benefits, which amounted to $2,417.79 per month. This substantial reduction was attributed to differences in the calculation methods employed by the workers’ compensation and ADR systems. The plaintiff’s attorney had believed the settlement to be advantageous, assuming higher ADR benefits, without considering the loss of the supplemental workers’ compensation benefit.

It is reported that the settlement necessitated approval from an administrative judge, representing that it was in the plaintiff’s best interest under the Act. Both the plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant’s attorney jointly presented the settlement as such. At the time, neither attorney realized that the plaintiff’s ADR benefits would be significantly lower than his previous workers’ compensation benefits. The plaintiff later sought rescission, alleging a mutual mistake of fact, asserting that his attorney’s misunderstanding of the benefits constituted such a mistake. Conversely, the defendant argued that rescission could only occur based on mutual mistake or fraud. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The defendant appealed. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) safeguards employees by prohibiting employers from taking adverse employment actions in retaliation against those seeking workers’ compensation benefits. If employers violate this provision, they may be liable for damages in tort to the affected employees. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed what evidence a plaintiff must offer to prove their termination constitutes retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. If you’ve suffered an injury while on the job, it’s advisable to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to assess potential benefits you may be able to recover.

The Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff had been employed by the defendant as a Supplemental Driver Sales Representative (DSR) before transitioning to a regular DSR, which involved physically demanding tasks such as loading and unloading heavy freight. As part of the plaintiff’s employment agreement, he had signed a document stipulating that they wouldn’t pursue legal action regarding their employment more than six months after an incident or termination.

Allegedly, the plaintiff sustained a job-related shoulder injury sustained in 2005, after which he filed a workers’ compensation claim. Consequently, the defendant initiated a process to reassign the plaintiff to a different role. However, the plaintiff was terminated in 2006 for not securing the necessary medical certification to resume his DSR responsibilities. Ultimately, the plaintiff settled his workers’ compensation claim with the defendant for a sum of $50,000. He then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, setting forth several claims, including workers’ compensation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant moved for summary judgment. Continue reading →

It is not uncommon for Massachusetts workers to be hurt on the job. Fortunately, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) allows most people injured while working to recover workers’ compensation benefits. In exchange for that right, however, they are barred from seeking damages for work-related injuries from their employer in tort. While typically, it is clear whether an employer-employee relationship exists so as to trigger the act, as shown in a recent Massachusetts case, in some instances it is less certain. If you were hurt at work, it is wise to meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to assess your rights.

Case Background

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered an injury while working on an assignment from a staffing agency to the defendant.  The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant. While this lawsuit was ongoing, the plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits through the staffing agency’s policy, which included the defendant as an additional insured. The defendant moved for summary judgment, citing the Act’s exclusivity provisions. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff appealed.

The Employer-Employee Relationship in the Context of Workers’ Compensation Claims

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial ruling. The court noted that the plaintiff’s injury was covered by the Act and that he received benefits from the staffing agency’s workers’ compensation insurer. The court also distinguished between the staffing agency as the “general employer” and the defendant as the “special employer” and pointed out the existence of an “alternate employer endorsement,” specifically naming the defendant in the staffing agency’s workers’ compensation. Continue reading →

People hurt at work may be able to recover workers’ compensation benefits from their employer, but in exchange for such benefits, they are precluded from seeking damages in tort for their harm. Whether they are eligible to seek workers’ compensation benefits or civil damages depends, in part, on whether they are employees or independent contractors. In a recent Massachusetts case, the court discussed what evidence is needed to establish a person is an employee as defined by the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), in a case in which it ultimately affirmed the plaintiff’s employee status barred him from recovering damages in tort. If you sustained harm while working, it is in your best interest to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to determine what benefits you may be owed.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was injured while operating a forklift at the defendant employer’s warehouse where he worked. He filed a lawsuit against the defendant, the warehouse owner, and the forklift manufacturer, alleging negligence. Following discovery, the defendant employer moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims via summary judgment on the grounds that they were immune from liability under the workers’ compensation law because the defendant was the plaintiff’s employer. The court granted the defendant’s motion. Four years later, the plaintiff appealed.

Employees vs. Independent Contractors in the Context of Workers’ Compensation Claims

On appeal, the court first looked at whether the matter was properly before it; it ultimately found that although the appeal was filed four years after the ruling was not barred or waived. Continue reading →

Generally, when public employees suffer injuries in a work incident that renders them unable to work, they can seek accidental disability retirement benefits. If their employer argues that the harm in question predated their accident, however, it may be challenging for them to recover benefits. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed what evidence is needed to demonstrate harm is work-related rather than the result of a pre-existing condition. If you were hurt at work, it is wise to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your rights.

Case Background

It is alleged that the claimant, who worked for the city of Worcester, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits due to a psychiatric condition stemming from a traumatic brain injury sustained during a fall from a garbage truck. The medical reason for the application was attributed to depression that was caused by a head injury. A regional medical panel comprised of three doctors affirmed the claimant’s incapacity to perform job duties, the permanence of this incapacity, and its link to the injury. The panel’s narrative noted the worsening of the claimant’s condition following the head injury and diagnosed him with major depressive disorder and neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury.

Reportedly, though, the Worcester Retirement Board rejected the claimant’s application. The case was brought before a Division of Administrative Law Appeals magistrate, who, after considering medical reports and testimony from the claimant, concluded that he was eligible for accidental disability retirement benefits. Despite adopting most of the DALA magistrate’s findings, the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) rejected the conclusion on medical causation and asserted that the claimant’s psychiatric conditions were continuous with his pre-existing conditions. The claimant appealed, and the court reversed CRAB’s decision. CRAB then filed an appeal. Continue reading →

Employees hurt on the job can often recover workers’ compensation benefits. In order to demonstrate benefits are warranted, they must, in part, show that they suffered a work-related injury, which can be challenging in cases in which the claimant had pre-existing injuries. In a recent Massachusetts ruling, a court explained how pre-existing injuries are handled in the context of workers’ compensation cases. If you were hurt in an accident at work, it is wise to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to determine what benefits you may be able to recover.

Factual Background

It is alleged that while cleaning up a worksite, the claimant experienced back tightness when he lifted buckets of waterproofing materials. Despite the discomfort, he completed his shift. The pain intensified over the next few days, leading him to seek treatment from a chiropractor, who continued treating the claimant until his return to work six months later. During this time, an MRI revealed disc herniations and degenerative changes.

It is reported that the claimant received treatment from a neurology office, where three physicians referred to prior back injuries and a diagnosis of pre-existing degenerative disc disease. The claimant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, which ultimately went before an administrative judge. The judge awarded the claimant worker’s compensation benefits based on the chiropractor’s opinion, rejecting the insurer’s claim that the chiropractor’s treatments were unnecessary. The Industrial Accident Reviewing Board affirmed the decision, and the insurer appealed. Continue reading →