Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) typically provides employees with the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries. However, the Act does not apply to all claims that may arise in connection with a person’s employment. For example, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts case, injuries sustained offsite while engaging in optional activities may not fall under the Act’s exclusivity provisions. If you were injured in connection with your job, you should contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to evaluate your possible claims.
Factual and Procedural Background
It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed as a hostess at a restaurant operated by the defendant. As a benefit of her employment, the plaintiff received a discount on food purchased at the restaurant but was not required to purchase food there. Reportedly, on one occasion after her shift ended, the plaintiff purchased a discounted salad and took it home to eat. While eating the salad, the plaintiff bit into a foreign object that had been negligently left in the food, causing her to fracture a tooth.
It is reported that the plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting claims of negligence and breach of warranty. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Act, which provides an exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.
The Exclusivity Provision of the Act
On appeal, the court reviewed whether the plaintiff’s injury was sufficiently work-related to fall under the exclusivity provisions of the Act. The court explained that for an injury to arise out of employment, it must be causally related to the employment, and for it to occur in the course of employment, it must be connected to the time, place, and circumstances of the job. Here, the court found that the plaintiff’s injury did not meet these criteria.
The court reasoned that while the discounted meal was a benefit of employment, it was not a requirement or necessity for the plaintiff’s job. Additionally, the injury occurred at the plaintiff’s home, on her personal time, and was unrelated to her work responsibilities. The court noted that any connection between the plaintiff’s employment and her injury was incidental and did not constitute the type of work connection required to invoke the Act.
The court further distinguished the plaintiff’s situation from cases in which injuries occurring offsite or outside of work hours were found to be work-related. It emphasized that the plaintiff’s injury resulted from eating a salad, not from the act of obtaining a discounted meal from her employer. As such, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were not barred by the Act and vacated the dismissal of her personal injury claims.
Consult a Skilled Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney
If you suffered a workplace injury, you may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits or other damages, depending on the circumstances surrounding your harm. Attorney James K. Meehan is a skilled Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer who can evaluate the facts of your case and help you determine the best path forward. To schedule a confidential consultation, contact Attorney Meehan at 508-822-6600 or through our online form.