Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

Victims of sexual harassment or assault in the workplace often feel entitled to pursue every legal avenue against their employer. However, Massachusetts law channels such claims into specific statutory schemes, leaving little room for common law actions. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights how the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the state’s anti-discrimination law can bar victims and their families from seeking additional remedies in court. If you or a loved one experienced harassment or assault at work, it is critical to understand these limitations and to speak to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney promptly about the proper way to preserve your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff was working at a retail store when she was assaulted and raped by an assistant store manager who was not scheduled to work that evening. The manager sent other employees home, leaving the plaintiff alone before committing the assault.

Allegedly, the employer had previously disciplined the assistant store manager for inappropriate conduct, including sexual harassment, and had received complaints from other employees about his behavior. Following the incident, the employer terminated the assistant store manager. Continue reading →

When an employee is injured at or near their workplace, one of the first questions that arises is whether the injury is covered under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. The Act provides a comprehensive and exclusive system of remedies for injuries occurring in the course of employment. A recent decision issued by a Massachusetts court demonstrates how strictly courts enforce the exclusivity provision, even when an insurance carrier initially denies coverage. If you were injured on the job, it is wise to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant community health center and, on the day of the accident, had completed her shift and punched out. She exited the building and began walking across property owned or controlled by the defendant, intending to head toward a nearby CVS Pharmacy. While still on the employer’s property, she tripped on a curb and suffered personal injuries.

It is further reported that the defendant filed a workers’ compensation report with its insurance carrier. The insurer subsequently denied coverage, claiming the plaintiff was not acting within the course and scope of her employment when the injury occurred. The plaintiff received notice of this denial but did not file her own claim or appeal to the Department of Industrial Accidents. Instead, nearly three years later, she filed a lawsuit in Superior Court seeking damages under common-law theories. Continue reading →

When an employee is injured or harassed in the workplace, one of the first questions that arises is whether the claim belongs in the workers’ compensation system or in civil court. Massachusetts law generally requires employees to pursue remedies for workplace injuries through the Workers’ Compensation Act, which provides benefits for medical care and lost wages. At the same time, the law draws a boundary between physical and psychological injuries compensable under the statute and the kinds of discrimination or harassment claims that may be pursued under separate statutes. A recent federal decision provides an important reminder of how the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act interacts with claims of harassment and retaliation. If you suffered harm of any nature in the workplace, it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, employed as an office manager by the defendant union, alleged a series of escalating acts of sexual harassment by her supervisor. The conduct included inappropriate comments, intimidation, and ultimately indecent exposure. The plaintiff claimed that these actions caused her both physical and psychological harm. In addition to her discrimination and retaliation claims, the plaintiff sought damages under common-law theories such as negligent infliction of emotional distress.

When a worker is injured on the job, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act generally provides the exclusive remedy against the employer. Questions sometimes arise, however, when a staffing agency places a worker at a company’s site, raising issues of who qualifies as the employer and whether the host company is shielded from tort liability. This was illustrated in a recent Massachusetts decision where a temporary worker sought to pursue negligence claims against the company that had supervised his work. If you were hurt while working, it is important to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney regarding your rights.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff was injured on November 24, 2018, while working as a temporary employee for the defendant on assignment from a staffing agency. The staffing agency was responsible for interviewing, hiring, assigning, and paying employees, while the defendant supervised the plaintiff’s day-to-day work, safeguarded the premises, and provided safety training. On March 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligence, gross negligence, and reckless conduct against the defendant, contending that the defendant’s failures caused his injuries.

It is reported that the defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act barred the plaintiff’s tort claims. The defendant argued it qualified as an “alternate employer” under the staffing agency’s workers’ compensation insurance policy. This endorsement, referencing an amendatory endorsement, provided that all clients of the staffing agency were considered alternate employers for workers’ compensation purposes, subject to certain conditions. The motion judge agreed, concluding that the staffing agreement between the defendant and the staffing agency met the definition of a written contract contemplated by the endorsement. Accordingly, the defendant was deemed an alternate employer and immune from tort liability. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’  Compensation system includes two distinct statutory safety nets designed to ensure benefit continuity for injured workers: the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund (Insolvency Fund) and the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund (Trust Fund). In cases involving uninsured employers and insolvent insurers, disputes may arise over which fund must assume responsibility for ongoing benefit payments. A recent decision by a Massachusetts court addresses this complex statutory overlap and clarifies the obligations of the Trust Fund when an insurer is declared insolvent after benefits have already been paid. If you were hurt while working, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, a statutory insolvency fund responsible for claims arising from insolvent insurers, made benefit payments to injured workers whose employers were later revealed to be uninsured at the time of injury. These payments were made after the plaintiff stepped in following insurer insolvencies and sought reimbursement from the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund under G.L. c. 152, § 65(2)(e), which authorizes the Fund to reimburse insurers for claims involving uninsured employers.

It is alleged that the Trust Fund denied the reimbursement requests on the basis that the Insolvency Fund does not meet the statutory definition of an “insurer” entitled to recover under § 65(2)(e). The Trust Fund contended that the Legislature intended the reimbursement provision to apply only to active insurers that voluntarily pay benefits, not to a fund acting in the capacity of a failed insurer’s successor. The plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court, seeking declaratory relief to compel reimbursement. The trial court ruled in favor of the Trust Fund, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

Workers’ compensation benefits are often treated as a financial lifeline for employees injured on the job, but the characterization and distribution of such benefits can become complex when family law intersects with injury compensation. A recent decision by a Massachusetts court highlights how workers’ compensation proceeds may be treated as marital property and can factor into child support enforcement actions. If you were injured at work, it is important to understand your rights and how any benefits you may be owed could be treated in future litigation, and you should speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can help clarify your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the parties married in 2013 following a lengthy personal and financial relationship, during which they shared expenses and jointly purchased property. The marriage ultimately broke down by 2020. The husband, employed by a commuter rail service, reportedly experienced several periods of disability due to job-related injuries and surgeries.

It is alleged that the husband received a net workers’ compensation settlement of $200,000 in 2020 related to his workplace injuries. By the time of the divorce trial, he claimed only limited income, specifically, $788 per week from workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance, and was no longer employed by his previous employer. The trial judge did not credit the husband’s assertions that his departure from work was medically necessary and found that he had made no effort to seek reemployment. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, municipal employees alleging workplace discrimination or retaliatory treatment must navigate a complex landscape of statutory protections and common-law limitations. A recent decision from the Massachusetts court demonstrates how the Workers’ Compensation Act, procedural pleading rules, and the limited scope of certain tort doctrines can narrow the path for plaintiffs seeking redress. If you suffered an injury at work, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney at your earliest convenience.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed by a town fire department beginning in 1998. In late 2020, a town nurse reportedly contacted the fire chief after receiving an anonymous call from the wife of a firefighter. The caller conveyed that a firefighter’s son had tested positive for COVID-19, yet the firefighter had still been permitted to respond to emergency calls. Following this report, the chief allegedly addressed the department, expressing suspicion and anger over the breach of medical privacy. He stated he was “98% sure” he knew the identity of the informant and urged that individual to submit a resignation letter.

It is reported that the chief soon accused the plaintiff of being the source of the disclosure and urged him to resign. The plaintiff denied the accusation and purportedly produced text messages implicating a younger firefighter. Nonetheless, the chief persisted in his belief that the plaintiff or his wife made the call. In February 2021, the chief asserted that the town nurse had confirmed the plaintiff’s wife was the caller, which she denied. The chief again requested the plaintiff’s resignation and allegedly accused him of insubordination when he refused. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, the workers’ compensation system is often the only avenue for injured workers to obtain benefits following a job-related injury. However, when injuries result from the negligence of another contractor or party on a shared worksite, injured workers may seek damages through third-party tort claims. A recent decision by a Massachusetts court illustrates the legal hurdles plaintiffs face when pursuing civil claims against subcontractors who assert workers’ compensation immunity. If you have been injured on the job and believe your injuries were caused by another contractor’s negligence, a Massachusetts workers’ compensation and personal injury attorney can help you explore every available legal remedy.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, a supplier of mast climbing work platforms, brought suit against a masonry subcontractor and others after an accident at a construction site in Boston. The plaintiff alleged that its employee was injured while dismantling one of the platforms and that the injury was caused by the negligence of the subcontractor’s foreman and crew, who had allegedly altered the platform’s configuration and left it in an unsafe condition.

It is alleged that the subcontractor had hired the plaintiff’s company to provide the platforms as part of a larger masonry project. After the masonry work was completed, the plaintiff’s employee returned to the site to dismantle the equipment. During the process, a platform component collapsed, resulting in injury. The plaintiff sought damages under theories of negligence and vicarious liability. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, emotional and psychological injuries are compensable under workers’ compensation law when they arise from identifiable workplace events or conditions. However, when such injuries stem from internal conflicts, professional feedback, or typical employment actions, the law imposes limits. A recent decision by the Massachusetts Reviewing Board illustrates the strict standards applied to claims for mental injuries allegedly caused by workplace stress or supervisory decisions. If you are experiencing emotional harm related to your job, a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help you determine whether your injury meets the legal requirements for compensation.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is alleged that the employee, a longtime case specialist at a Massachusetts Trial Court, filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits based on psychological harm she attributed to persistent bullying by her supervisor. The employee stated that beginning in early 2016, she experienced episodes of anxiety and panic attacks at work. According to her testimony, her supervisor singled her out for criticism, micromanaged her tasks, and excluded her from professional opportunities. The employee asserted that this pattern of conduct resulted in depression and anxiety, for which she sought medical treatment and eventually took a leave of absence.

It is reported that the employee presented medical evidence in support of her claim, including records from her treating physician and a Section 11A impartial examiner. Both sets of medical opinions diagnosed her with an anxiety disorder and depressive symptoms. However, the impartial examiner opined that the employee’s symptoms were largely attributable to preexisting factors, including a personal history of trauma and longstanding anxiety, rather than specific incidents at work. Continue reading →

Massachusetts workers’ compensation law generally provides the exclusive remedy for employees injured in the course of employment. However, certain tort claims may fall outside that statutory bar if they arise from intentional and malicious conduct rather than mere workplace injury or negligence. A recent decision from a Massachusetts Court clarifies when the exclusivity provision does and does not apply to claims for emotional distress allegedly caused by coworkers and supervisors. If you are suffering from mental or emotional injuries related to workplace treatment, a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help you evaluate your legal remedies.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, a judicial staff attorney at the Massachusetts Appeals Court, brought a civil action against a coworker, a supervisor, and a court administrator, alleging intentional interference with advantageous relations. The plaintiff claimed the defendants orchestrated a campaign of harassment and malicious conduct that culminated in his termination. According to the complaint, the coworker expressed hostility toward the plaintiff’s professional background, discouraged staff from attending his writing seminar, and solicited criticism from judges. Following a promotion, she began issuing negative evaluations.

It is alleged that the supervisor initially praised the plaintiff’s work but later began criticizing his performance, extending his probation and permitting the coworker to oversee his work. Reports from other staff attorneys indicated the plaintiff was subjected to unique scrutiny and undue pressure. The supervisor did not intervene when informed of the coworker’s behavior. Continue reading →