Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) provides that employees who suffer injuries arising out of their employment can recover benefits, including weekly wage replacement payments for dependents in cases of death. It can be challenging to recover such benefits in cases involving latent injuries, and significant gaps between exposure and eligibility for benefits, however, as highlighted in a recent Massachusetts decision. If you are pursuing workers’ compensation benefits or seeking clarity on your rights, consulting with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney is crucial.
History of the Case
It is alleged that the employee worked for a power company from for thirty years. Reportedly, he was exposed to asbestos fibers throughout his employment. It is further alleged that four years after retiring, the employee was diagnosed with asbestosis and metastatic adenocarcinoma, illnesses linked to his work-related asbestos exposure. He ultimately succumbed to his illnesses nearly five years after his diagnosis.
It is reported that the employee’s widow filed a claim for benefits under § 31 of the Act, which provides for payments to dependents of employees who die due to work-related injuries. An administrative judge acknowledged that the employee’s work exposure to asbestos caused his illness and death but denied benefits, citing the employee’s voluntary retirement and lack of earnings in the year preceding his death. On appeal, the Industrial Accident Reviewing Board reversed the denial, directing payments based on the employee’s last earnings. The employer’s insurer appealed, prompting the Supreme Judicial Court’s review.
Eligibility for Death Benefits Under the Act
The court vacated the Reviewing Board’s decision, emphasizing that workers’ compensation laws are primarily designed to provide wage replacement, not serve as a life insurance mechanism. It explained that under § 31 of the Act, compensation depends on the dependent’s relationship to the employee’s earnings at the time of injury or death. The court also considered § 35C, which addresses cases with extended gaps between injury and eligibility. This section calculates benefits based on earnings at the date of eligibility unless no earnings exist.
The court determined that because the employee voluntarily retired in and elected to take a lump-sum pension, he had no wage-based income at the time of his death . It concluded that the widow did not qualify for benefits under § 35C, as the statute expressly links compensation to earnings or wage loss. The court noted that allowing benefits in this scenario would expand the Act’s purpose beyond its intended wage-replacement framework.
Additionally, the court invalidated a regulation under 452 Code Mass. Regs. § 3.02(1) that sought to calculate benefits based on the employee’s last date of employment. It found that this interpretation conflicted with the Act’s statutory language and legislative intent, which strictly ties benefits to active wage loss. As such, the court remanded the case to the Industrial Accident Reviewing Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Confer with a Capable Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Lawyer
Navigating workers’ compensation claims can be particularly complex in cases involving latent injuries or extended time gaps between exposure and eligibility. If you are pursuing benefits or facing challenges with a claim, you need an attorney who understands the nuances of the law. Attorney James K. Meehan is a skilled Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer who can assess your case and help you seek the benefits you deserve. To arrange a consultation, please contact Attorney Meehan at 508-822-6600 or reach out through our online form.