Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, people hurt while working can often recover workers’ compensation benefits from their employer. Such benefits are meant, in part, to compensate the employee for the loss of income they suffered due to their injuries; in other words, they represent lost wages. As such, if a person that received workers’ compensation benefits subsequently divorces, such benefits may be subject to division as marital property, as explained in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt while on the job, you may be owed benefits, and it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer regarding your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the husband received a $240,000 workers’ compensation settlement for an injury during the marriage. The husband and his wife subsequently divorced. Some funds were distributed during the divorce proceedings, leaving $123,230 in escrow. The divorce judgment, dated March 30, 2018, incorporated the separation agreement and distributed $50,000 of the remaining settlement to the wife. The judge considered factors such as the husband’s health and employment status before the injury, the wife’s modest income, and her intention to buy out the husband’s share in the marital home. The husband appealed, arguing that his workers’ compensation settlement was not a divisible marital asset.

Workers’ Compensation Benefits in the Context of Divorce Actions

On appeal, the husband argued that workers’ compensation settlements shouldn’t be divisible marital assets under G. L. c. 208, § 34. The court disagreed, stating that the accident occurred during the marriage, and the settlement was received before the finalization of the divorce nisi. As a workers’ compensation claim is an “unliquidated claim for money damages,” it qualified as marital property and was subject to division in the divorce proceedings. Continue reading →

Under Massachusetts law, employers are required to provide employees that sustain injuries at work with workers’ compensation benefits. Unfortunately, however, employers do not always uphold their obligations and will attempt to avoid paying benefits by arguing that an employee did not sustain significant harm. This was illustrated in a recent case in which an employer appealed a decision determining that an employee was permanently disabled. If you sustained an injury at work, it is advisable to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer regarding what benefits you might be owed.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the claimant sustained a knee injury while working as a security patrol officer in 2005. Over time, her knee condition deteriorated, and she underwent surgery in 2012. After returning to work, she injured her left knee in August 2012 and had not worked since then. The claimant received ongoing treatment from an orthopedic surgeon and pain specialist.

Reportedly, based on the plaintiff’s testimony, medical opinions from the claimant’s providers, and an impartial medical examiner, the administrative judge determined that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled due to her work-related injuries. The judge ordered the employer to pay the employee temporary and permanent workers’ compensation benefits. The reviewing board summarily affirmed the judge’s decision. The employer then appealed to the Massachusetts courts. Continue reading →

Many people who suffer injuries on the job are ultimately unable to return to work. In such instances, they may be able to obtain workers’ compensation benefits to make up for their lost wages. If they receive other benefits or compensation from their employer while they are on leave for their work-related disability, though, it may complicate the issue of when their accidental disability retirement occurred. This was illustrated in a recent Massachusetts case in which the court ultimately determined that six pay did not constitute compensation for the purpose of making such determinations. If you were hurt at work, you might be able to recover benefits, and you should meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as you can.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that in a recent case, a Massachusetts court determined that vacation or sick pay, when mean to supplement workers’ compensation payments, is not considered regular compensation as defined by the law. The case revolved around an employee that worked for a town’s Department of Public Works. He suffered job-related injuries and began receiving workers’ compensation benefits along with two hours per week of sick or vacation pay.

Allegedly, the town sought an involuntary retirement of the employee due to accidental disability, and the retirement board approved the application. The Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC) determined that the employee’s retirement date was the last day he received regular compensation, which included the supplemental pay. The employee appealed, but the decision was affirmed. He then appealed again. Continue reading →

It is not uncommon for people to suffer harm at work. While such harm is generally caused by accidents, it can be brought about by intentional acts as well. Regardless of the source of workplace injuries, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act permits employees hurt on the job to recover benefits. In exchange for such rights, however, they are generally precluded from pursuing claims in tort against their employer, as explained in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you were injured while working, it is smart to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about what benefits you may be able to recover.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and workplace injuries against his former employer and its officers. He sought permission to proceed in forma pauperis as well. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that while working as a seasonal employee for the defendant, he suffered a back injury that impacted his ability to work full-time. Further, he alleged that his supervisor authored a report containing false and defamatory statements about the plaintiff’s conduct at work, leading to his termination.

Civil Claims for Workplace Injuries

The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis but ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. In doing so, the court notes that the plaintiff has not alleged violations of state or federal laws related to his termination, such as discrimination or wrongful termination. Additionally, the court found that his claims regarding workplace safety and injury were unlikely to succeed as a violation of OSHA regulations does not create an independent cause of action. Continue reading →

While most people injured on the job will seek workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to a state workers’ compensation act, federal employees may pursue benefits for their harm under the Federal Employee Liability Act (FELA). Whether a court can exercise jurisdiction over a FELA claim depends on numerous factors, including their contacts within the state. Even if a company merely registers to do business within a state, jurisdiction may be proper. As discussed in a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court, a state statute that requires businesses to consent to personal jurisdiction in a state and does not violate due process. If you are a federal employee and suffered harm while working, you may be owed benefits, and you should speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant invoking the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff alleged that he had been exposed to cancer-causing substances while working for the company in Ohio and Virginia over the course of 27 years. Although the plaintiff was not exposed to the substances in Pennsylvania, he sued the defendant in a Pennsylvania court, arguing that the court had jurisdiction over the defendant because it had registered to do business in Pennsylvania.

Allegedly, Pennsylvania law dictates that a foreign corporation has to register with the Department of State of the Commonwealth before conducting business in the state and that, in doing so, they consent to personal jurisdiction within the state. The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court agreed and deemed the statute in question unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed. The plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts workers’ compensation Act (the Act) grants employees the right to recover benefits for work injuries. In order to recover such benefits, though, they must prove that their harm is work-related. In other words, injuries caused by other factors are not compensable, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt while at work, it is in your best interest to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant for thirty-five years as a truck driver. He suffered two knee injuries and a blood clot in his lower left leg during his employment. Prior to these injuries, he already had progressive degenerative arthritis in both knees. An independent medical examiner conducted an examination and concluded that there was a causal connection between the work-related incidents and the employee’s diagnoses. The IME’s report stated that the work-related injuries, combined with the preexisting arthritis, caused the employee’s complaints, disability, and need for treatment.

It is reported that the plaintiff’s doctor recommended knee replacements, and he sought medical benefits from the defendant to cover the cost. The defendant raised a defense based on the “combination injury” provision of the Act due to the employee’s preexisting arthritis. The administrative judge determined that the defendant had met its burden of production on this issue, and it was up to the employee to prove that the arthritis was caused by a compensable injury or disease or that the work-related injuries were a major cause of his disability or need for treatment. The judge ultimately denied the plaintiff’s claims because the IME could not state with reasonable certainty that the presence of arthritis was caused by his work injuries. The board affirmed the denial, and the employee appealed. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, people hurt at work can typically recover workers’ compensation benefits from their employer. The right to recover such benefits precludes them from pursuing tort claims for their harm, however. The parameters of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) was the topic of a recent Massachusetts ruling in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s emotional distress claim. If you suffered injuries while working, you should meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to discuss your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant from January 2014 to January  2015. He regularly organized “speaker meetings” where doctors would meet with patients to discuss illnesses and the defendant’s products. These meetings, held at least once a year, often had the same information and recurring attendees. Standard slides were provided to physicians for these meetings.

Allegedly, In October 2014, a meeting was held. Only two families attended, and both families stated they did not want to see the slides as they had seen them before. The plaintiff submitted a report afterward indicating that the slides were not shown. He was then terminated for cause, specifically, the failure to comply with the “mandatory” requirement of showing the slides at the October 18 meeting. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for emotional distress and other losses. The defendant removed the case to federal based on diversity jurisdiction and filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint, arguing that the exclusivity clause of the Act barred the plaintiff’s emotional distress claims. Continue reading →

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, employees that suffer injuries while working have the right to seek medical and disability benefits. In exchange for the right to recover such benefits, however, they are precluded from pursuing claims against their employers for damages arising from workplace injuries. As discussed in a recent Massachusetts ruling, this includes emotional distress claims. If you sustained harm at work, it is important to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about what benefits you may be owed.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed as a teacher at the defendant’s school district. In her fourteenth year of employment, she advocated for improved environmental and working conditions. That same year, she received a worse performance review than she had in the previous decade. After she appealed the review, it was changed to exemplary, but she was nonetheless transferred to a different school.

Allegedly, as the union representative, the plaintiff was asked to advocate for increased staffing and monitoring of the students to improve the educational environment. Her meeting with the superintendent was canceled, and she was subsequently placed on leave and escorted from the school by the police. She developed an autoimmune disorder that was attributed to stress and anxiety. She then filed a lawsuit against the employer, asserting, inter alia, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss her claim. Continue reading →

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 →