Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

Continue reading →

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), correction officers injured by acts of violence are entitled to special benefits in addition to workers’ compensation. These assault pay benefits, which cover the difference between a worker’s weekly compensation and their regular salary, were at the center of a recent legal opinion issued by a Massachusetts court. If you believe you are entitled to such benefits, consulting with a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney is essential to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, a union representing correction officers, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, a sheriff’s department, seeking to impose a statutory fourteen-day deadline for processing assault pay benefit claims. The union argued that the same timeline for determining workers’ compensation benefits under the Act should apply to assault pay. Allegedly, the Superior Court rejected this argument and entered judgment in favor of the sheriff, prompting the union to appeal.

It is alleged that under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 126, § 18A, correction officers injured by acts of violence while performing their duties are entitled to assault pay benefits. These benefits supplement workers’ compensation, ensuring the employee continues to receive their full salary during recovery. However, the union contended that delays in determining entitlement to these benefits left employees without timely financial relief. Continue reading →

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. Continue reading →

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. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, workers’ compensation is designed to provide financial relief for employees injured on the job. However, as a recent Massachusetts case illustrates, disputes regarding earning capacity assessments can arise during the claims process; as such, it is important that judges take a reasoned approach to such determinations. If you were injured at work and have concerns about your workers’ compensation claim, it is wise to meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to explore your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the claimant, an ironworker, suffered a back injury while working for his employer. Following his injury, the insurer initially provided temporary total disability benefits pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. Later, the insurer sought to modify or discontinue these benefits, leading to a dispute over the claimant’s earning capacity.

Allegedly, an administrative judge found the claimant to be partially disabled and awarded him partial disability benefits based on an assigned earning capacity of $975 per week. The judge determined that the claimant could perform “light duty” work but provided no explanation of what such employment might entail or the basis for the $975 figure. The Industrial Accident Reviewing Board summarily affirmed this decision, and the claimant appealed. Continue reading →

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), employees are entitled to benefits and protections for injuries sustained at work. The Act, however, does not fully protect against all employment actions taken by employers, particularly in cases where accommodations are requested and subsequently denied due to job limitations. A recent Massachusetts case highlights issues around disability accommodations, retaliation, and adherence to COVID-19 protocols. If you believe you were terminated or discriminated against due to a workers’ compensation claim or for seeking accommodations, it is essential to consult a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney to review your rights and options.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff, an employee of the defendant childcare agency since 2007, worked as a teaching assistant. Her duties included assisting children with basic care and maintenance of classroom spaces. In 2017, the plaintiff sustained a back injury while lifting a child and subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim. Following her injury, she sought a series of accommodations to limit her lifting duties. The defendant granted some of these requests but ultimately denied others, citing that her requested limitations would prevent her from fulfilling essential job responsibilities. When her symptoms persisted, the plaintiff’s final accommodation request included limitations on lifting, bending, and standing, which the defendant denied, offering instead a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Allegedly, in 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendant implemented a COVID-19 protocol, which included mandatory self-screening for symptoms and strict adherence to reporting guidelines. Despite understanding the protocol, the plaintiff reportedly attended work while experiencing symptoms consistent with COVID-19. On August 3, 2020, she received a positive COVID-19 test result while at work, prompting an immediate facility shutdown and quarantine measures. Shortly after her recovery, the defendant terminated her employment, citing failure to comply with COVID-19 protocol and alleged misrepresentation on health attestations. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging wrongful termination, retaliation under workers’ compensation laws, and disability discrimination. The defendant then moved for summary judgment. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) protects employees’ rights to pursue benefits for workplace injuries. However, while employees are shielded from retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claims, employers may legally investigate the legitimacy of such claims, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts case involving a claim for dental injury. If you believe you were wrongfully terminated or retaliated against for exercising your workers’ compensation rights, you should meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to assess your options.

Case Setting and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a jail officer, claimed to have sustained a dental injury during a workplace altercation and subsequently filed for workers’ compensation benefits. During the investigation into the injury, the plaintiff submitted multiple documents to the employer’s insurer to support his claim. These documents included a backdated report from a superior and an altered medical progress note, both of which the superior and treating physician assistant later admitted to falsifying at the plaintiff’s request. Despite evidence suggesting the dental injury may have occurred, the employer discovered discrepancies in the documentation, leading it to conduct an internal investigation.

Reportedly, following the investigation, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated for submitting fraudulent documents and violating the employee code of conduct. He then filed a lawsuit against the employer, alleging retaliation under the Act, claiming that his termination was a direct result of his workers’ compensation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that his termination constituted unlawful retaliation. Continue reading →

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 →