Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), employees injured on the job are generally limited to seeking compensation through the workers’ compensation system, which provides a structured method for obtaining benefits but bars most personal injury claims against employers. This exclusivity can be challenged only under specific, narrow exceptions. A recent Massachusetts case involving an employee’s wrongful termination and emotional distress claim underscores the strict application of this exclusivity principle under the Act. If you have experienced a workplace injury or believe your termination may entitle you to legal remedies beyond workers’ compensation, consulting with a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer is an essential step in understanding your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, an employee of the defendant security company, was hired as a security guard in 2011. Although the plaintiff held a Class A firearm license restricted to hunting and target practice, his supervisor allegedly assigned him to armed security duties that exceeded his license’s scope. Despite knowing the limitations of the plaintiff’s license, the supervisor assured him that the assignments were approved by the Boston Police Department. During these assignments, the plaintiff carried firearms, including a 9-millimeter handgun, and wore a special police officer uniform, sometimes even carrying a .38 special handgun. In August 2013, the plaintiff encountered a threatening situation while on duty, prompting him to draw his firearm. Although he did not discharge it, the police intervened and subsequently revoked his firearm license upon discovering its limitations.

Allegedly, following the incident, the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment, citing that he had been carrying the wrong weapon and acted prematurely in drawing his gun. The plaintiff asserted that the real reason for his termination was the employer’s fear of an investigation into the defendant’s practice of assigning unlicensed employees to armed security details. He filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination, vicarious liability for violating firearm licensing laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and discrimination. The defendant moved to dismiss all but the wage claim. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) provides employees with the right to seek benefits for workplace injuries that impact their ability to work, including partial incapacity benefits for injuries that diminish a worker’s earning capacity. To qualify for these benefits, however, an injured worker must show that their work-related injury has impacted their ability to perform job-related tasks. A recent Massachusetts case highlights the importance of accurate job duty assessments and the need for substantial evidence when determining an employee’s eligibility for partial incapacity benefits. If you were hurt at work, it is wise to talk to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney regarding what steps you can take to protect your interests.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the petitioner, an employee, was injured in an explosion during his employment, resulting in abdominal and right eye injuries from shrapnel. He initially received benefits from his employer’s insurer for the injury and later filed for partial incapacity benefits under Massachusetts law. The administrative judge presiding over his case assessed the petitioner’s job duties, concluding that they were primarily office-based with occasional field duties, despite evidence from the petitioner and a vocational expert indicating that his role involved mostly fieldwork. After his initial employment, the petitioner continued similar work for other contractors, performing both field and office roles. Eventually, he obtained a solely office-based position, which he held briefly before being laid off.

Allegedly, he ultimately ceased working, and an impartial medical examiner concluded he should avoid industrial environments that posed risks to his remaining functional eye. The Department of Industrial Accidents denied the petitioner’s claim for partial incapacity benefits, asserting that his work capacity had not decreased due to his injury. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the administrative judge’s conclusions about his job duties were inaccurate and that his work capacity was impaired. The reviewing board upheld the judge’s decision, prompting the petitioner’s appeal. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) provides employees throughout the Commonwealth with the right to pursue benefits for illnesses or injuries that arise in the scope of employment. In exchange for that right, though, the Act bars people from pursuing tort claims from their employers, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you were injured in the workplace, you may be able to recover benefits, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer about your options.

Factual History and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff injured his shoulder while picking up windows at the defendant’s request in February 2001. The incident occurred in an icy parking lot, where the plaintiff slipped and fractured his shoulder. At the time, there was no formal documentation regarding whether the plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor. After the injury, the plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim, but the defendant’s insurer rejected it, claiming the plaintiff was an independent contractor. The plaintiff also initiated a personal injury lawsuit, first against the owner of the lumber yard and later adding the defendant, alleging negligence in directing him to work under dangerous conditions.

It is alleged that while pursuing both the workers’ compensation claim and the tort lawsuit, the plaintiff eventually settled with the defendant for a lump sum of $8,500 under the Act. The settlement agreement noted the dispute over the plaintiff’s employment status and allowed the plaintiff to continue his tort action. After the workers’ compensation settlement, the defendant failed to respond to the tort action, resulting in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also settled with the lumber yard for $42,500. The defendant sought to vacate the default judgment, claiming that the Act’s exclusivity provision barred the plaintiff’s tort claim. The granted motion to vacate the default judgment and summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the exclusivity provision. The plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) provides employees with the right to seek benefits from their employers for workplace harm, but in exchange for that right, they are barred from pursuing personal injury claims against their employers.  Generally, insurers provide such benefits and defend employers in any lawsuits arising from such claims. If an employer fails to assert essential defenses, though, their insurer may deny them coverage, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt at work, it is smart to meet with a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer to examine what steps you can take to protect your interests.

History of the Case

It is alleged that a former employee of the plaintiff, the employer, filed a civil lawsuit alleging gender discrimination and wrongful termination. The employee’s spouse also claimed loss of consortium and support. Under Massachusetts law, employees who do not preserve their right to common law claims through written notice at the time of hire are barred from seeking common law remedies for injuries compensable under the workers’ compensation statute. In this case, the employee did not preserve such rights and did not file a claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

Reportedly, the plaintiff notified its workers’ compensation insurer, the defendant, and requested defense coverage. The defendant refused, arguing that the insurance policy did not cover the claims made in the civil lawsuit. The plaintiff assumed its own defense, settled the case through arbitration, and sought reimbursement from the insurer for the arbitration award, legal fees, and additional damages. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, ruling that the plaintiff was not entitled to reimbursement, as it should have invoked the exclusivity defense of the workers’ compensation statute. The plaintiff appealed the decision. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) dictates that employers must pay employees hurt while performing job duties benefits. Typically, such benefits are actually paid by insurers, not the employers themselves. In such instances, it is not uncommon for an insurer to withhold disability payments to offset workers’ compensation payments. As discussed in a recent case, it is unlikely that such offsets will be deemed reimbursable in the event the injured party recovers damages from a third party. If you were injured while working, it is critical to speak to a  Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer about your possible claims.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the plaintiff suffered a severe injury to his right hand in a workplace accident, rendering him disabled for three years. At the time, the plaintiff was insured under a group disability insurance policy issued by the defendant, a life insurance company. During his disability, the plaintiff received disability payments from the defendant and workers’ compensation benefits from his employer’s workers’ compensation insurer. The defendant withheld about twenty thousand dollars from its disability payments to the plaintiff to offset the workers’ compensation payments for lost time in accordance with the terms of its policy.

It is reported that the plaintiff and his family subsequently filed a third-party lawsuit against the machine manufacturer that allegedly caused his injury, resulting in a settlement of $300,000. The workers’ compensation insurer had a lien on the settlement proceeds and was reimbursed $65,050. The remainder of the settlement was allocated to attorneys’ fees and the plaintiff’s family. The plaintiff then demanded that the defendant refund the amount it had withheld for the workers’ compensation offset, arguing that because the workers’ compensation insurer had been reimbursed, the offset was no longer necessary. When the defendant refused, the plaintiff brought the subject lawsuit against the employer. The defendant moved for summary judgment. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) protects Massachusetts employees in that it allows them to recover benefits if they are injured while working. The Act is the sole remedy for such injuries, meaning employees hurt on the job cannot pursue personal injury claims for their losses. A key factor in whether a claim falls under the purview of the Act is whether the harm in question arose in the scope of employment, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt at work, it is advisable to talk to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer about your options as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff, an employee of the defendant company, filed a lawsuit against his employer and a co-employee, alleging negligence after being struck by a vehicle operated by his co-employee. The accident occurred after the plaintiff had completed his shift, clocked out, and was walking toward his car in the designated employee parking lot at a distribution center where the defendant company operated. The vehicle that struck the plaintiff was owned by the defendant company and driven by the co-employee as part of their work duties.

It is reported that as a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained various injuries. The plaintiff filed a complaint asserting common-law negligence claims against both the employer and co-employee. The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity provisions of the workers’ compensation act barred the plaintiff’s claims because the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. The trial court granted the motions, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund (WCTF) is a statutory entity that reimburses insurers for some workers’ compensation benefits paid pursuant to Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation law. This includes payments made to previously injured employees who suffer further work-related injuries pursuant to demands that employers pay employees who sustain injuries while working benefits for their harm. Only certain employers are eligible for reimbursement, though, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you were injured while on the job, it is important to understand your rights, and you should meet with a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer promptly.

Factual History and Procedural Background

It is reported that the revenues for the WCTF come from assessments of employers collected by their insurers based on premiums. However, some employers can opt out of these assessments by self-insuring and filing a notice of nonparticipation, which makes them ineligible for reimbursement from the WCTF.

It is alleged that the plaintiff, an insurer, had stopped issuing new policies in Massachusetts but continued to service claims under policies it previously issued during a “run-off period.” The insurer requested second-injury reimbursements from the WCTF, which were initially approved. However, following a 2014 decision by the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents, which denied reimbursement to another insurer in a similar run-off period, the WCTF began denying the plaintiff’s requests. The reviewing board upheld the denial, leading to the plaintiff’s appeal. Continue reading →

Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation law demands that employers pay employees who sustain injuries while working benefits for their harm. A workers’ compensation claimant must demonstrate that they suffered an actual injury due to the nature of their work, which typically requires medical evidence. If a claimant fails to meet this burden and their claim is denied, they may be denied the right to submit additional evidence, as shown in a recent Massachusetts case. If you sustained harm due to a work injury, you may be owed benefits, and you should speak to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer as soon as possible.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the employee appealed a decision from the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents, which affirmed an administrative judge’s denial of his workers’ compensation benefits. The employee claimed that his job required more physical exertion than the employer acknowledged, which he argued entitled him to compensation for his injury. He also sought to introduce additional medical evidence, arguing that the IME was biased against workers’ compensation claimants.

Reportedly, the IME had commented during a deposition about studies showing poorer outcomes for people involved in litigation, which the employee interpreted as bias. Additionally, the employee challenged the administrative judge’s reliance on the IME’s opinion, claiming it conflicted with the opinions of other doctors, and he argued that his medical condition had worsened since the earlier examinations. Finally, the employee contested the judge’s acceptance of testimony that the employer could modify his job to accommodate his limitations. Continue reading →

Under Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation law, employers must provide workers’ compensation benefits for employees injured in the course and scope of performing job duties. Notably, Massachusetts law only requires such benefits for employees, not independent contractors; as such, the proper characterization of a worker is essential, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts case where the court discussed how to determine someone’s status.  If you were hurt while working, it is in your best interest to consult a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer about your options.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant misclassified them as independent contractors when they were, in fact, employees, in violation of Massachusetts law. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, alleged that the defendant failed to provide wages and benefits and violated state minimum wage laws. They argued that despite being labeled as independent contractors, they were effectively employees due to the level of control the defendant exercised over their work.

It is alleged, however, that the defendant argued that the plaintiffs were not employees but independent contractors and sought summary judgment based on a precedent set in a prior case. The plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a ruling that they were employees under Massachusetts law. The case was initially filed in state court but was later removed to federal court. After several motions, the court certified a class for certain claims, and the matter was reassigned to a different judge before the summary judgment motions were considered. Continue reading →

Under Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation law, people who are hurt while working cannot recover damages in tort from their employer; they can recover them from third parties that contribute to their harm. In a recent Massachusetts case, a court debated whether an insurer had a right to settlement proceeds for pain and suffering and loss of consortium, ultimately determining that they did not. If you experienced workplace harm, it is advisable to confer with a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer promptly.

History of the Case

It is reported that the decedent was involved in a motor vehicle accident while he was working; he subsequently died five days later. The plaintiff, the executrix of the decedent’s estate, initiated a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against the hospital and physicians involved in his treatment. The case proceeded to arbitration, resulting in an unallocated $300,000 recovery for the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant, a workers’ compensation insurer, filed a statutory lien to recover the benefits paid to the decedent’s widow. The plaintiff filed for declaratory relief to invalidate the lien. The Superior Court ruled that the $300,000 was settlement proceeds and upheld the validity of the insurer’s lien.

Allegedly, the parties submitted their proposed allocations for judicial approval. The insurer suggested that $250,000 was subject to the lien, including allocations for loss of consortium and conscious pain and suffering. Conversely, the plaintiff’s proposal allocated amounts to categories exempt from the lien, leaving $18,951.51 for the insurer. A second judge found both proposals legally unsound, ruling that compensation for conscious pain and suffering and loss of consortium was not subject to the insurer’s lien. The judge ordered a resubmission of proposals with fair allocations to net income loss, to which the lien could attach. The plaintiff’s revised proposal was approved, allocating $100,000 to net expected loss of income, $100,000 to conscious pain and suffering, and $100,000 to loss of consortium for the decedent’s widow and son. The insurer appealed this decision. Continue reading →