Published on: |

The construction of a will or trust in Massachusetts can determine whether or not the estate of a deceased person is distributed according to his or her wishes. The placement of punctuation or the absence of two words can completely change the meaning of a document and how assets are issued. The structure of the document can certainly affect how or whether the assets are taxed upon transfer.

At the end of last year, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling on one of the trusts created among a series of trusts for the benefit of a couple’s children and grandchildren. The couple each created trusts in their names to provide income for their sons, preserving principal for future generations. The trust under the patriarch’s name was irrevocable upon his death and established two trusts for his wife’s benefit during her lifetime. She was granted the power of appointment over the marital trust, and when she passed, the principal of the patriarch’s trust was divided into two “share trusts” for each son. The sons had the power of appointment over these trusts to “one or more of the Donor’s issue.”

These share trusts were not subject to the Federal generation skipping transfer (GST) tax, which taxes property transfers made to grandchildren that were not subject to the estate tax upon the trust’s initial transfer. This tax was enacted in 1986 and offered exemptions up to $3.5 million. This tax was enacted after the patriarch’s death, but while the matriarch still lived, so she created her own trust to help avoid the taxation of the GST. She used her power of appointment over the marital trust by appointing it to her new trust, directing that amounts equal to the exemption be held in a family trust. The trust explicitly stated that her grandchildren and remote descendants are fully exempt from the GST tax.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

When a Massachusetts worker faces the pain and inconvenience of an injury, the frustration over the inability to work can sometimes be overwhelming. Aside from facing lost wages during the recovery period, the employee may face the daunting reality of learning a new job skill if the injury was severe enough to prevent a full return to the work he or she had previously been able to do. Learning a new trade and potentially changing one’s occupation completely is challenging enough after a serious injury, but it can become a more complex decision if the worker suffers a series of moderate injuries over a period of time instead of catastrophic injuries from one accident.

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Reviewing Board Decision, McDonald v. Brand Energy Services, Inc., the Board affirmed the award of Section 34 benefits (Temporary Total Incapacity) for an injured employee. The employee was a union laborer who had worked and been injured in industrial accidents over the years, dating back to 1991. The injured employee suffered back injuries four times prior to the immediate case on appeal. The employee acquired lump sum settlements in each case, and returned to work three years after the fourth accident in 2001. He did not work the heaviest jobs but did push through daily moderate back pain to complete other tasks.

In 2012, the employee sustained another back injury when a piece of staging was dropped by a colleague as they were loading a truck together. The employee was approved for light work following the accident, but he did not return to work. When he brought his application for benefits, the insurer alleged that by returning to work after several back injuries, he was committing serious and willful misconduct that precluded his ability to receive workers’ compensation for this injury. The workers’ compensation judge at the initial hearing ruled against the insurer, making a finding that the employee did not commit willful or serious misconduct and did not misrepresent his injury, since he advised he could not perform the heaviest tasks, like jackhammering. The Reviewing Board also did not believe that the employee’s return to work was misconduct, and it found that the injury was the result of the other employee hitting him, and it was no fault of his own.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

Injuries in Massachusetts can take many different forms. Car accidents, construction accidents, and slip and falls on slick sidewalks all come to mind as the types of personal injuries one reads about in the news. They are also the type of injuries that are eligible for legal action if a third party’s negligent actions caused the accident. In a civil suit for negligence, the injured party must show that the at-fault party causing the accident had a duty, that the defendant failed in that duty, and that the injury was caused by the negligence. If the injured party can present proof by the preponderance of evidence, he or she may be able to obtain damages, or costs incurred as a result of the injury. Injuries that qualify for monetary damages extend beyond bodily injuries. Massachusetts common law also allows for the recovery of monetary damages for mental and emotional harm under the causes of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

An unusual injury was recently discussed in a U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals case,Tobin v. FedEx Corp. A package was mis-labeled and delivered by mistake to a woman, who opened it to discover that the package contained a large quantity of marijuana. The woman was distressed by this unexpected arrival of an illegal substance in front of her young daughter. The woman handed over the substance to the authorities, but she became more distressed after a stranger arrived at her door with two other strange men waiting in the car, asking if a package was sent to her by mistake. The woman slammed the door in his face and called the police. The woman became distraught, believing that the employees of FedEx had shared her home address with people involved in illegal drug trading, and she filed suit for invasion of privacy, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

Massachusetts workers’ compensation laws were enacted to provide a quicker route for injured workers to receive benefits, while shielding employers from time-consuming litigation. An injured worker does not have to prove negligence, just that he or she suffered an injury during the course of employment. Claims however, are not always granted by the workers’ compensation insurance, nor are they always awarded by the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ). Sometimes, in order to obtain benefits, an appeal must be filed to the Workers’ Compensation Reviewing Board.

Injured workers may be surprised to learn that they can also receive compensation if they have suffered from negative changes to their mental and emotional health. These are known as psychiatric injuries. They can form the basis of a claim alone, but they typically accompany a physical injury claim. Frequently claimed conditions include depression and anxiety.

An opinion was recently published by the Board that partially reversed a denial of benefits and recommitted the case for another look at the injured employee’s claim for permanent and total incapacity benefits. The injured worker suffered an industrial accident where he suffered injuries to his shoulder and psychiatric injury. The employer paid temporary total incapacity benefits until they were exhausted, but it filed to discontinue them when the injured worker filed for permanent total incapacity benefits.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

During the winter months, Massachusetts residents brace for the snow and ice that cause slick and slippery roads, sidewalks, and driveways. Some public establishments take the time and care necessary to ensure safe passage, while others neglect their property. Injuries that occur due to poor property maintenance are known as “slip and fall” cases, and more formally as “premises liability.” Slip and falls extend beyond icy passages and can include accidents like a slippery floor in a grocery store, or a decrepit, poorly lit staircase in an apartment complex. Owners are responsible under state law to maintain their premises in a safe condition for everyone who can reasonably expected to be on the property. If someone suffers an injury as a result of neglect, she or he can seek compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering from the property owner.

Thorough investigation conducted as soon as possible after the injury can greatly aid in the pursuit of damages. Each slip and fall case is unique, and individual facts that arise from an investigation can affect the outcome and amount of award an injured party receives. Frequently, owners will point to the injured party’s actions to rebut claims of negligence, or to their own attempts to warn or prevent injury.

The Commonwealth Court of Massachusetts recently issued a Memorandum and Order in Monaco vs. Vacation Camp Resorts International, Inc., which provides an example of the legal analysis conducted in a premises liability case. In this case, a man sought recovery for serious injuries when he fell down a hill. This hill was used by campers to reach a shower building, and the injured guest argued that the owners of the resort failed to light the pathway, keep it in a safe condition, or warn against its dangers. The trial court issued a summary judgment in favor of the resort, and the injured guest appealed.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

Accidents can be complicated events, with multiple parties involved and contributing to the cause of the accident. For example, two drivers at an intersection may both act recklessly while driving across. One may be texting while driving, and the other may be speeding to “beat” a yellow light about to turn red. If the texting driver suffers injuries, he or she may pursue civil action against the other driver, but questions will quickly arise as to fault and compensation. The texting driver may wonder whether or not he or she can recover anything from the other driver.

Massachusetts follows the doctrine of comparative negligence. In the scenario described above, if the speeding driver is found to be more than 50% at fault, the texting driver can recover damages from the speeding driver. The texting driver, however, can have his or her award reduced by the amount of fault assigned by a judge or jury. If the texting driver seeks $50,000 worth of damages from the speeding driver, but is found to be 40% at fault, the texting driver would only be able to recover $30,000 under Massachusetts law.

An example of a comparative negligence can be found in the case of Baudanza v. Comcast. In this car accident case, a service truck struck the driver’s side of an automobile while driving through an intersection. The injured driver filed suit against the truck driver and his employer. The defendant company argued that the injured driver was also negligent and attempted to bring in an expert witness to extrapolate the injured driver’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident. However, the judge found it to be too speculative and excluded the defense expert’s testimony from the jury trial.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

To pursue a medical malpractice action in Massachusetts, an injured patient must show that there was a failure to use the generally accepted practices and procedures of a specific disease or disorder, commonly used by medical professionals in the same area of medicine, during his or her treatment. This is usually described as a breach in the standard of care. When filing a medical malpractice action, the injured patient must submit her or his case to the Medical Malpractice Tribunal (MMT) for review, so it can determine whether or not there is enough substantiated evidence to bring a case before a jury or judge. This can include testimony from a qualified expert, who attests to whether or not the standard of care was breached.

In Washington vs. Cranmer, the injured patient went to an emergency room for various symptoms. The 37-year-old woman complained of body weakness, left arm weakness, dizziness, high blood sugars, and blurry vision. The injured patient already had a history of diabetes, chronic hypertension, and high cholesterol, and she presented upon arrival with slow responses, high blood pressure, and difficulty walking. She was examined, treated, and released by an E.R. doctor, who determined that she was alert, able to walk and move, and oriented. The E.R. doctor prescribed blood pressure medicine after the injured patient revealed she had not taken her medicine that morning. A CT scan was conducted, which did not reveal any abnormalities. An MRI was additionally ordered so that the E.R. doctor could better determine her condition. The injured patient was claustrophobic and ultimately did not go through with the MRI, and she had elevated blood pressure. Despite the lack of test results to make a determination, the injured patient was discharged with instructions to return if she suffered any additional problems.

After her release, the injured patient suffered a stroke overnight, and she now has permanent neurological damage. The woman filed her medical malpractice action in the Massachusetts Superior Court and submitted it to the MMT for review, as required, but did not post the $6,000. The MMT concluded that the proof was insufficient to bring a legitimate question of liability in front of a fact-finder and dismissed for the lack of the statutorily mandated bond.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

With the holiday season upon workers and residents of Massachusetts, it is important to remember to stay safe when traveling to and from festivities during the holidays. Several establishments and events serve alcohol, and other drivers may become reckless by driving while intoxicated or become distracted by texting others, which are both prohibited under Massachusetts law. While it may be easy to determine that the driver of the other car should be held accountable for your injuries, it may become apparent and necessary that other people or entities should be held responsible as well.

In a civil action, the injured person, or plaintiff, must show the defendant, or the party alleged to have caused the injury, had a duty toward him or her. If a person violates this duty, and this causes an injury, he or she is responsible for damages under Massachusetts civil law. If there is no duty or link between the accident and the injury, liability does not exist. Examples of duties toward others can be found in Massachusetts statutory law. A driver has a duty to others on the roads or sidewalks to operate his or her vehicle safely. Businesses that sell or serve alcoholic beverages have a duty, known as Dram Shop Liability (Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 138, Sec. 69), to stop or abstain from serving alcohol to an intoxicated person. Likewise, a host is responsible under Social Host Liability laws (Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 138, Sec. 34) to refrain from providing an underage or intoxicated person with alcohol. Both commercial establishments and private hosts must remain vigilant about how much alcohol is being served and to whom it is served.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

In Massachusetts, Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits are often found in drivers’ car insurance policies. While this type of coverage is not required by law and can be waived, it is frequently purchased by Massachusetts drivers. These are often described as “no-fault” benefits and are available to the driver or a passenger of the insured vehicle. They are also available to injured pedestrians from the policy of the vehicle that hit them. PIP benefits were designed to cover reasonable and necessary medical expenses, funeral expenses, loss of wages, and ordinary and necessary household services that you can no longer provide for yourself as a result of the injury. However, the amount of PIP available to an injured party may vary, depending on several factors.

Someone injured in an auto accident while working cannot access PIP benefits, since he or she would be able to use workers’ compensation benefits, which also cover medical expenses, funeral expenses, and lost wages. They are also unavailable to those who are injured while committing a felony or driving while under the influence. The maximum amount of PIP benefits is $8,000.00, but only $2,000.00 of those benefits are assuredly available to the injured. If the claimant does not have health insurance or MedPay, he or she is covered up to $8,000.00. If the policy holder has a separate health insurance policy, any amount over $2,000.00 must be submitted to the health insurer for a determination of whether or not the claim is covered. The claim cannot be denied based solely upon the existence of PIP, but if the claim is not covered under the health insurance policy, it can be denied by the health insurer for reasons outlined in the policy. The claim may be re-submitted to the motor vehicle insurer for consideration. While an auto insurance carrier can deny claims using the same reasons as the medical insurer, such as the injured person going to an out-of-network provider, it must pay for items that may not be included in the health insurance plan, like chiropractor and dentist visits.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers’ compensation injuries often involve individuals who work for companies that perform contract tasks for other entities. Workers’ compensation is designed to provide financial relief to an injured employee, while removing the possibility of extensive litigation for the employer. In other words, if an injured worker obtains Massachusetts workers’ compensation benefits, she or he is generally precluded from pursuing negligence damages in a civil suit with the employer that carries the insurance. However, if another party is either partially or fully responsible for the injuries, such as a contractor, the employee can pursue civil action against the third party in addition to the workers’ compensation benefits received.

Massachusetts General Laws, Ch. 152, Section 15, allows an injured employee to receive workers’ compensation from his or her employer, but it also provides the employer’s insurer the opportunity to place a lien over any third-party settlement for its payment to the employee. This statute allows the insurer to recover costs already paid to the employee and includes the ability to offset future compensation benefits. The injured employee receives the remaining amounts in addition to amounts he or she paid toward costs from the third-party settlement.

A recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case provides an example of how far insurance companies will go to recoup the costs paid to an injured employee. In DiCarlo vs. Suffolk Construction Company, an injured worker received workers’ compensation benefits and then sued the owner of the building and received a settlement from the third-party tortfeasor. Part of this settlement was allocated as non-economic damages to the injured employee for pain and suffering and lack of consortium for his spouse. The employer’s workers’ compensation insurer attempted to file a lien under G. L. c. 152, § 15, with the insurer insisting that the lien applied to the non-economic damages. The Appeals Court disagreed and ultimately allowed the injured worker and his spouse to keep the portion of the settlement allocated as non-economic damages.
Continue reading →