Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) protects Massachusetts employees in that it allows them to recover benefits if they are injured while working. The Act is the sole remedy for such injuries, meaning employees hurt on the job cannot pursue personal injury claims for their losses. A key factor in whether a claim falls under the purview of the Act is whether the harm in question arose in the scope of employment, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt at work, it is advisable to talk to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer about your options as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff, an employee of the defendant company, filed a lawsuit against his employer and a co-employee, alleging negligence after being struck by a vehicle operated by his co-employee. The accident occurred after the plaintiff had completed his shift, clocked out, and was walking toward his car in the designated employee parking lot at a distribution center where the defendant company operated. The vehicle that struck the plaintiff was owned by the defendant company and driven by the co-employee as part of their work duties.

It is reported that as a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained various injuries. The plaintiff filed a complaint asserting common-law negligence claims against both the employer and co-employee. The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity provisions of the workers’ compensation act barred the plaintiff’s claims because the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. The trial court granted the motions, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund (WCTF) is a statutory entity that reimburses insurers for some workers’ compensation benefits paid pursuant to Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation law. This includes payments made to previously injured employees who suffer further work-related injuries pursuant to demands that employers pay employees who sustain injuries while working benefits for their harm. Only certain employers are eligible for reimbursement, though, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you were injured while on the job, it is important to understand your rights, and you should meet with a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer promptly.

Factual History and Procedural Background

It is reported that the revenues for the WCTF come from assessments of employers collected by their insurers based on premiums. However, some employers can opt out of these assessments by self-insuring and filing a notice of nonparticipation, which makes them ineligible for reimbursement from the WCTF.

It is alleged that the plaintiff, an insurer, had stopped issuing new policies in Massachusetts but continued to service claims under policies it previously issued during a “run-off period.” The insurer requested second-injury reimbursements from the WCTF, which were initially approved. However, following a 2014 decision by the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents, which denied reimbursement to another insurer in a similar run-off period, the WCTF began denying the plaintiff’s requests. The reviewing board upheld the denial, leading to the plaintiff’s appeal. Continue reading →

Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation law demands that employers pay employees who sustain injuries while working benefits for their harm. A workers’ compensation claimant must demonstrate that they suffered an actual injury due to the nature of their work, which typically requires medical evidence. If a claimant fails to meet this burden and their claim is denied, they may be denied the right to submit additional evidence, as shown in a recent Massachusetts case. If you sustained harm due to a work injury, you may be owed benefits, and you should speak to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer as soon as possible.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the employee appealed a decision from the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents, which affirmed an administrative judge’s denial of his workers’ compensation benefits. The employee claimed that his job required more physical exertion than the employer acknowledged, which he argued entitled him to compensation for his injury. He also sought to introduce additional medical evidence, arguing that the IME was biased against workers’ compensation claimants.

Reportedly, the IME had commented during a deposition about studies showing poorer outcomes for people involved in litigation, which the employee interpreted as bias. Additionally, the employee challenged the administrative judge’s reliance on the IME’s opinion, claiming it conflicted with the opinions of other doctors, and he argued that his medical condition had worsened since the earlier examinations. Finally, the employee contested the judge’s acceptance of testimony that the employer could modify his job to accommodate his limitations. Continue reading →

Under Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation law, employers must provide workers’ compensation benefits for employees injured in the course and scope of performing job duties. Notably, Massachusetts law only requires such benefits for employees, not independent contractors; as such, the proper characterization of a worker is essential, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts case where the court discussed how to determine someone’s status.  If you were hurt while working, it is in your best interest to consult a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer about your options.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant misclassified them as independent contractors when they were, in fact, employees, in violation of Massachusetts law. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, alleged that the defendant failed to provide wages and benefits and violated state minimum wage laws. They argued that despite being labeled as independent contractors, they were effectively employees due to the level of control the defendant exercised over their work.

It is alleged, however, that the defendant argued that the plaintiffs were not employees but independent contractors and sought summary judgment based on a precedent set in a prior case. The plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a ruling that they were employees under Massachusetts law. The case was initially filed in state court but was later removed to federal court. After several motions, the court certified a class for certain claims, and the matter was reassigned to a different judge before the summary judgment motions were considered. Continue reading →

Under Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation law, people who are hurt while working cannot recover damages in tort from their employer; they can recover them from third parties that contribute to their harm. In a recent Massachusetts case, a court debated whether an insurer had a right to settlement proceeds for pain and suffering and loss of consortium, ultimately determining that they did not. If you experienced workplace harm, it is advisable to confer with a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer promptly.

History of the Case

It is reported that the decedent was involved in a motor vehicle accident while he was working; he subsequently died five days later. The plaintiff, the executrix of the decedent’s estate, initiated a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against the hospital and physicians involved in his treatment. The case proceeded to arbitration, resulting in an unallocated $300,000 recovery for the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant, a workers’ compensation insurer, filed a statutory lien to recover the benefits paid to the decedent’s widow. The plaintiff filed for declaratory relief to invalidate the lien. The Superior Court ruled that the $300,000 was settlement proceeds and upheld the validity of the insurer’s lien.

Allegedly, the parties submitted their proposed allocations for judicial approval. The insurer suggested that $250,000 was subject to the lien, including allocations for loss of consortium and conscious pain and suffering. Conversely, the plaintiff’s proposal allocated amounts to categories exempt from the lien, leaving $18,951.51 for the insurer. A second judge found both proposals legally unsound, ruling that compensation for conscious pain and suffering and loss of consortium was not subject to the insurer’s lien. The judge ordered a resubmission of proposals with fair allocations to net income loss, to which the lien could attach. The plaintiff’s revised proposal was approved, allocating $100,000 to net expected loss of income, $100,000 to conscious pain and suffering, and $100,000 to loss of consortium for the decedent’s widow and son. The insurer appealed this decision. Continue reading →

Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation law is complex. As such, it is not surprising that the entities involved in issuing workers’ compensation insurance and benefits will often disagree over their rights and obligations and will seek intervention from the courts. For example, in a recent Massachusetts ruling, the court discussed the process of determining if an insurer can recover cost of living benefits from the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund. If you suffered wounds while working, it is in your best interest to meet with a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation lawyer to discuss your rights.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff was an insurance company that issued workers’ compensation policies in Massachusetts and later went into liquidation. The company sought reimbursement for cost of living adjustments (COLA) made to individuals receiving workers’ compensation benefits. Under Massachusetts law, employers fund these COLA increases through annual assessments collected by insurers and then reimbursed by the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund. The plaintiff faced financial issues, leading to the cessation of new policy issuance and a run-off period to manage existing policies. The company was placed into liquidation. During the run-off, the company stopped accumulating assessments from employers but continued paying benefits, including COLA.

In Massachusetts and in most other states, the workers’ compensation law dictates that employees who sustain work-related injuries can pursue workers’ compensation benefits from their employers. In exchange for that right, though, they are barred from pursuing tort claims for any harm that occurs within the scope of their employment. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed what constitutes “in the scope of employment” in a case in which it ultimately found that the law precluded the plaintiff’s tort claims. If you were injured while working, you might be eligible to recover benefits, and you should meet with a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney.

Case Setting

It is alleged that both the plaintiff and defendant were California residents and employees of a technology company; they were on a multi-city business trip with another co-worker. Their employer arranged and paid for all travel, including airline, hotel, and rental car reservations. They arrived at the airport in Boston and decided to do some sightseeing before heading to their hotel in Burlington, Massachusetts. While the defendant was driving and the plaintiff was in the rear passenger seat, they got lost and ended up in Somerville, Massachusetts. The defendant ran a red light and collided with another vehicle, resulting in injuries to both the plaintiff and the occupants of the other vehicle.

It is well-established under Massachusetts law that employees hurt while working can recover workers’ compensation benefits from their employers. In practice, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurer will typically provide such benefits. As such, when more than one insurer covers an employer, it may be unclear which one is responsible for paying claims, as illustrated in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt at work, it is wise to talk to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney about your rights.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the employee, a Massachusetts resident, was hired by the employer in Massachusetts to work as a camp counselor and unit leader at a camp in New Hampshire during the summer of 1994. She sustained an injury in July while working at the camp, received treatment at a New Hampshire hospital, and was released the same day. The employer had two workers’ compensation insurance policies at the time: one covering New Hampshire claims, excluding Massachusetts claims, and one covering only Massachusetts claims. The New Hampshire insurer paid some medical bills under its New Hampshire policy but denied weekly benefits due to insufficient medical evidence of disability.

It is reported that after returning to Massachusetts, the employee filed a claim with the Commonwealth’s Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA) against the New Hampshire insurer, which was denied on the basis that the New Hampshire insurer’s policy did not cover Massachusetts law. Subsequently, the employee filed a claim against the Massachusetts insurer. An administrative judge ordered the New Hampshire insurer to pay the benefits, which the New Hampshire insurer contested, asserting it was not liable under Massachusetts law. Continue reading →

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, employees can recover workers’ compensation benefits if they are hurt while on the job. In exchange for that right, though, they lose the ability to pursue civil claims against their employers. Recently, a Massachusetts court addressed whether employees could bypass the exclusivity portion of the Act in cases in which the prior owner of the employer’s company was negligent, ultimately determining they could not. If you were harmed while working, it is in your best interest to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly.

Factual and Procedural History

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, received workers’ compensation benefits for an injury sustained while operating a hydraulic press. The plaintiff and his wife subsequently filed a tort suit against the defendant, alleging that defects in the hydraulic press, which was owned by the prior owner before merging into the plaintiff’s employer, caused the injury. They claimed the prior owner knew about the press’s defects at the time of the merger but failed to disclose or remedy them.

Allegedly, the plaintiffs argued that the prior owner’s liability transferred to the defendant through the merger. The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s tort claims were barred by Massachusetts workers’ compensation law, as the benefits received through the law provided immunity to the employer from such suits. This case came before the court for the second time on appeal. Continue reading →

Continue reading →