Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) provides compensation for maritime and harbor workers who suffer work-related injuries. In part, the LHWCA provides permanent disability benefits for employees who can no longer work because of their injuries. Employers may dispute the permanence of an employee’s injuries, but as discussed in a recent case, such positions can be challenging to prove. If you are involved in a workers’ compensation dispute, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.
Facts and Procedural History
It is reported that the claimant, an ironworker employed by a steel erection company, sustained a serious back injury while performing job duties that required heavy lifting. Allegedly, following the injury, the claimant attempted to return to work in various capacities, including part-time clerical work and a brief stint as a security guard, but continued to experience disabling pain. Reportedly, the employer’s insurance carrier disputed the severity of the claimant’s disability, arguing that he was capable of performing other types of work.
It is alleged that an administrative law judge (ALJ) initially ruled that the claimant suffered a 50 percent permanent partial disability. However, the Benefits Review Board overturned this finding, concluding that the employer failed to establish the availability of suitable alternative employment and that the claimant’s injuries rendered him permanently and totally disabled. The employer and its insurer appealed to the First Circuit, contending that the Board erred in rejecting evidence of alternative employment opportunities and in denying the employer relief under Section 8(f) of the LHWCA.
Suitable Alternative Employment
On appeal, the court reviewed whether the employer met its burden in demonstrating that the claimant had viable alternative employment options. Under the LHWCA, an employer may rebut a claimant’s prima facie case of total disability by showing that suitable alternative employment exists and is realistically available within the claimant’s community. The employer argued that the claimant’s part-time clerical work and brief employment as a security guard demonstrated that he was capable of engaging in gainful employment.
The appellate court rejected this argument, affirming the Board’s determination that these jobs did not constitute suitable alternative employment. The court noted that the clerical position was a sheltered position provided by the employer on an as-needed basis, involving only limited work hours and accommodations that would not be available in the competitive job market. Similarly, the security guard position lacked sufficient documentation to establish whether it was viable employment. Because the employer failed to identify specific job opportunities that were both suitable and available, the claimant was deemed permanently totally disabled.
The employer also sought relief under Section 8(f) of the LHWCA, which limits an employer’s liability when a preexisting disability contributes to an employee’s total disability. The employer argued that the claimant had suffered prior back injuries that contributed to his current condition and, therefore, it should not be held responsible for the full duration of compensation payments. The court rejected this argument, holding that the employer failed to establish that the claimant’s prior injuries resulted in a manifest permanent disability before the workplace accident. The evidence showed that the claimant had fully recovered from previous back injuries and returned to unrestricted physical labor before the incident. Because the employer did not meet the statutory requirements for Section 8(f) relief, it was held liable for full compensation benefits.
Consult a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney
Workers who suffer permanent disabilities due to workplace injuries face significant challenges in securing fair compensation, especially when employers attempt to dispute their claims. If you are dealing with a complex workers’ compensation case, it is smart to talk to an attorney. Attorney James K. Meehan of the Law Office of James K. Meehan is a capable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who has extensive experience handling workers’ compensation disputes, and if you hire him, he will advocate aggressively on your behalf. Contact Attorney Meehan at 508-822-6600 to discuss your case or use the firm’s online form to arrange a conferece.