Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

When a workplace injury results from a company’s disregard for worker safety, Massachusetts law provides an avenue for enhanced compensation. Under Massachusetts’s workers’ compensation law, an employee who proves that an employer’s conduct was “serious and willful” may recover double benefits. A recent Massachusetts ruling illustrates how courts analyze the sufficiency of such claims and determine whether evidence of safety violations rises to the level of “serious and willful misconduct.” If you have suffered a workplace injury and believe your employer ignored safety protocols, contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can evaluate what benefits you may be able to recover.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was injured during the course of his employment. He pursued workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that his employer’s safety failures constituted “serious and willful misconduct.” The employee asserted that management knowingly allowed unsafe working conditions and failed to take corrective action after previous incidents and warnings.

Allegedly, the injury occurred while the plaintiff was engaged in physically demanding labor involving heavy equipment. He claimed that the employer’s supervisors were aware of the risks posed by the method of work being used but failed to implement safety measures or training required by company policy and industry standards. The plaintiff filed a claim for double compensation pursuant to § 28, which permits enhanced benefits where an employer’s misconduct is more than mere negligence and shows a reckless disregard for worker safety. Continue reading →

People injured while working on or near navigable waters may be entitled to disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). The Act provides a structured framework to ensure that qualifying employees receive financial assistance after a workplace injury. One critical issue in determining the amount of benefits available is identifying the date when an employee is considered “newly awarded compensation.” Recently, the United States Supreme Court examined this question and clarified its meaning. If you suffered a work-related injury on the waterfront, it is important to understand how the timing of your award could affect the benefits you receive.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

Allegedly, the petitioner worked for the defendant at a marine terminal in Alaska, where he slipped on ice in 2002 and injured his neck and shoulder. The petitioner was unable to return to work. Reportedly, the defendant voluntarily paid the petitioner disability benefits, except for a brief period in 2003, without any formal compensation order being issued.

It is reported that in 2005, the defendant stopped making voluntary payments. As a result, the petitioner filed a formal claim under the LHWCA, which the defendant contested. The dispute was heard by an administrative law judge (ALJ) in 2007, who awarded the petitioner benefits based on the statutory maximum for the year 2002, when the disability began. The petitioner argued that the award should have been calculated using the higher statutory maximum rate in effect in 2007, the year of the ALJ’s order. Continue reading →

Families who lose a loved one in a workplace accident often feel a natural desire to pursue justice through the courts. Yet, under Massachusetts law, many of these claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. These provisions are designed to ensure uniform remedies but can sometimes leave families with no recourse against an employer, even in heartbreaking circumstances. A recent decision from the Supreme Judicial Court illustrates just how far this exclusivity rule extends. If you or a loved one has suffered harm at work, it is critical to understand how workers’ compensation law affects your rights, and you should consult an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent, an 18-year-old high school student working at a Boston pharmacy, attempted with other employees to stop a suspected shoplifter. Reportedly, the suspect responded with sudden violence, stabbing the decedent in the neck and causing fatal injuries almost instantly.

Allegedly, the decedent had no dependents, though he lived with his mother and was financially connected to both of his parents. Because he left no dependents, no workers’ compensation death benefits were paid, aside from funeral expenses voluntarily covered by a related corporation. Continue reading →

Employees who experience harassment in the workplace may understandably wish to pursue a variety of legal remedies. However, Massachusetts law provides carefully structured statutory schemes that limit the avenues for relief. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court demonstrates how exclusivity provisions in the Workers’ Compensation Act can block employees from bringing common law or alternative statutory claims. If you have faced workplace harassment or discrimination, it is critical to understand these limits and to seek advice from an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can guide you through the proper channels.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company from 1985 until her termination in 1992. During her employment, she was subjected to ongoing sexual harassment in multiple departments, including threats, obscene remarks, sexual slurs, and offensive visual displays. The employer held occasional meetings in response to her complaints but failed to take meaningful corrective action. The plaintiff further alleged that when she requested a change in her schedule or work environment, her requests were largely denied, and she continued to be exposed to harassment.

It is reported that the plaintiff’s employment was ultimately terminated, and as a result of the hostile work environment she endured, she suffered severe emotional distress. She filed a lawsuit asserting multiple claims, including violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, and G.L. c. 214, § 1C, which guarantees a right to be free from sexual harassment. She also brought common law claims for negligent supervision, failure to investigate, breach of contract, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

Victims of sexual harassment or assault in the workplace often feel entitled to pursue every legal avenue against their employer. However, Massachusetts law channels such claims into specific statutory schemes, leaving little room for common law actions. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights how the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the state’s anti-discrimination law can bar victims and their families from seeking additional remedies in court. If you or a loved one experienced harassment or assault at work, it is critical to understand these limitations and to speak to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney promptly about the proper way to preserve your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff was working at a retail store when she was assaulted and raped by an assistant store manager who was not scheduled to work that evening. The manager sent other employees home, leaving the plaintiff alone before committing the assault.

Allegedly, the employer had previously disciplined the assistant store manager for inappropriate conduct, including sexual harassment, and had received complaints from other employees about his behavior. Following the incident, the employer terminated the assistant store manager. Continue reading →

When an employee is injured at or near their workplace, one of the first questions that arises is whether the injury is covered under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. The Act provides a comprehensive and exclusive system of remedies for injuries occurring in the course of employment. A recent decision issued by a Massachusetts court demonstrates how strictly courts enforce the exclusivity provision, even when an insurance carrier initially denies coverage. If you were injured on the job, it is wise to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant community health center and, on the day of the accident, had completed her shift and punched out. She exited the building and began walking across property owned or controlled by the defendant, intending to head toward a nearby CVS Pharmacy. While still on the employer’s property, she tripped on a curb and suffered personal injuries.

It is further reported that the defendant filed a workers’ compensation report with its insurance carrier. The insurer subsequently denied coverage, claiming the plaintiff was not acting within the course and scope of her employment when the injury occurred. The plaintiff received notice of this denial but did not file her own claim or appeal to the Department of Industrial Accidents. Instead, nearly three years later, she filed a lawsuit in Superior Court seeking damages under common-law theories. Continue reading →

When an employee is injured or harassed in the workplace, one of the first questions that arises is whether the claim belongs in the workers’ compensation system or in civil court. Massachusetts law generally requires employees to pursue remedies for workplace injuries through the Workers’ Compensation Act, which provides benefits for medical care and lost wages. At the same time, the law draws a boundary between physical and psychological injuries compensable under the statute and the kinds of discrimination or harassment claims that may be pursued under separate statutes. A recent federal decision provides an important reminder of how the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act interacts with claims of harassment and retaliation. If you suffered harm of any nature in the workplace, it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, employed as an office manager by the defendant union, alleged a series of escalating acts of sexual harassment by her supervisor. The conduct included inappropriate comments, intimidation, and ultimately indecent exposure. The plaintiff claimed that these actions caused her both physical and psychological harm. In addition to her discrimination and retaliation claims, the plaintiff sought damages under common-law theories such as negligent infliction of emotional distress.

When a worker is injured on the job, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act generally provides the exclusive remedy against the employer. Questions sometimes arise, however, when a staffing agency places a worker at a company’s site, raising issues of who qualifies as the employer and whether the host company is shielded from tort liability. This was illustrated in a recent Massachusetts decision where a temporary worker sought to pursue negligence claims against the company that had supervised his work. If you were hurt while working, it is important to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney regarding your rights.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff was injured on November 24, 2018, while working as a temporary employee for the defendant on assignment from a staffing agency. The staffing agency was responsible for interviewing, hiring, assigning, and paying employees, while the defendant supervised the plaintiff’s day-to-day work, safeguarded the premises, and provided safety training. On March 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligence, gross negligence, and reckless conduct against the defendant, contending that the defendant’s failures caused his injuries.

It is reported that the defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act barred the plaintiff’s tort claims. The defendant argued it qualified as an “alternate employer” under the staffing agency’s workers’ compensation insurance policy. This endorsement, referencing an amendatory endorsement, provided that all clients of the staffing agency were considered alternate employers for workers’ compensation purposes, subject to certain conditions. The motion judge agreed, concluding that the staffing agreement between the defendant and the staffing agency met the definition of a written contract contemplated by the endorsement. Accordingly, the defendant was deemed an alternate employer and immune from tort liability. Continue reading →