Published on: |

While the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) allows people to recover benefits if they are harmed at work, it requires them to waive the ability to pursue personal injury claims against their employers in exchange for such rights. Instead, the exclusivity provision of the Act provides that the Act is the sole remedy for injuries sustained at work. The exclusivity provision is strictly construed and applies not only to bodily harm but also to emotional injuries as well, as evidenced in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you were harmed by your employer’s acts, it is in your best interest to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your rights as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff worked as a police officer at a Massachusetts university from December 2014 through March 2015, when he was fired for alleged misconduct. After he was let go, he filed an action against the university and his former supervisor, asserting various claims related to his termination. The defendants then moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. Among other things, they argued that his intentional interference with a contract, tortious interference with a contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act. The plaintiff opposed the defendant’s motion.

Exclusivity Provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act

The court ultimately granted the defendant’s motion in part and denied it in part. The court explained that the exclusivity provisions of the Act state, in part, that employees are deemed to have waived their rights to pursue common law claims against their employers to recover damages for personal injuries. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under Massachusetts law, employees who suffer work-related injuries can often recover workers’ compensation benefits from their employers. Only injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment are compensable, however. As such, if a claimant cannot establish that the harm they suffered is work-related, their claim for benefits may be denied. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed what evidence a claimant must offer to show that their harm was work-related in a case in which it ultimately denied the claimant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. If you were hurt while working, you might be owed benefits from your employer, and you should speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

The Claimant’s Harm

It is alleged that the claimant worked as a night custodian for a charter school from 2007 through July 2015, when he was terminated. Three weeks after he lost his job, he had a heart attack when he was mowing his lawn. He subsequently filed two workers’ compensation claims. In the first, he alleged he suffered a workplace injury in August 2014 following a negative interaction with his supervisor that caused him to suffer psychological and emotional harm. In the second, he alleged he suffered a workplace injury on the day he was terminated that also caused him to suffer psychological and emotional harm and brought about his heart attack.

It is reported that both claims were brought before an administrative judge who determined that the bona fide personnel action defense barred the plaintiff’s claims. The claimant appealed to the Department of Industrial Accidents, and while it concluded that the administrative judge improperly applied the bona fide personnel action defense, the denial of the claimant’s claims was nonetheless proper. The claimant then appealed to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts. Continue reading →

Published on: |

People who are treated adversely at work will often pursue civil claims against their employers. While they are generally permitted to do so, depending on the nature of their claims, they may be precluded by the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). For example, the exclusivity provisions of the Act can operate to bar claims asserting emotional harm, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you suffered physical or emotional harm at work, it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your potential claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff worked for the employer as a hub specialist. She had two small children that she breastfed. When she was breastfeeding, she would frequently pump breast milk while working. She was granted permission to use a storage closet to pump and was advised it was a private space. She later learned, however, that there were cameras in the closet. She then filed a request for leave with the employer, stating that her request for accommodations for pumping breastmilk failed. The employer did not respond to her request. She subsequently filed a civil lawsuit against them, asserting an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and other claims.

Determining if the Act Precludes a Civil Claim

The employer argued, among other things, that as the Act generally precluded employees from pursuing civil claims, like personal injury claims, against their employer, it barred the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. The court explained that to determine whether a plaintiff’s civil action against an employer is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act, the courts must conduct a three part test. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Many Massachusetts residents regularly use ride-sharing apps to travel from one point to another. Ride-share drivers, like all Massachusetts motorists, have a duty to drive in a safe manner. Regardless, they do not always uphold their duties and frequently cause crashes. People injured in accidents with ride-sharing drivers can usually recover damages from the driver but recovering compensation from the company they drive for can prove more challenging. In a recent Massachusetts case, a court assessed what information a party pursuing claims a ride-sharing company can obtain via discovery in an effort to support their claims. If you were hurt in a collision, it is wise to meet with a Massachusetts personal injury attorney about your potential claims.

The Subject Accident

Allegedly, the plaintiff, who was walking down a street, was hit by the defendant driver, who was operating a vehicle on behalf of the defendant ride-sharing company. The plaintiff sustained critical harm in the crash. As such, he filed a lawsuit seeking damages from the defendants. As to the defendant ride-sharing company, he alleged that it was the defendant driver’s employer and therefore was vicariously liable for the defendant driver’s acts,

Continue reading →

Published on: |

People who suffer injuries at work can often recover workers’ compensation benefits. Typically, though, they cannot pursue any other civil claims against their employers. This preclusion extends not only to claims arising out of bodily harm but also to those seeking damages for emotional trauma. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed the exclusivity provision of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) in a case in which it ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claims on other grounds. If you sustained injuries due to workplace conditions, you might be owed workers’ compensation benefits, and it is in your best interest to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was terminated by his employer due to a reduction in force. The termination happened shortly after the plaintiff returned to work after being out on parental leave. The plaintiff subsequently filed a civil lawsuit against the employer, arguing that he was fired in retaliation for taking leave, in violation of his rights, and asserting various claims under state and federal law, including an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The employer moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Generally, Massachusetts law limits people injured at work to the recovery of workers’ compensation benefits. In some professions, though, a person injured in the line of duty may be able to recover additional compensation. This was illustrated in a recent Massachusetts case in which the court found that a police officer qualified for assault pay in addition to workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to the General Laws. If you were hurt while working, you should speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to discuss what benefits you may be able to recover.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff worked for a county sheriff’s department. In January 2018, an incident occurred in a correctional facility where an inmate took a guard hostage. The plaintiff was called to assist a co-worker in carrying a metal footlocker to address the hostage situation. When he was helping move the footlocker, the plaintiff hurt his shoulder.

Allegedly, the plaintiff could not work due to his injuries. He sought and received workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). He then sought assault pay pursuant to numerous provisions of the General Laws. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under Massachusetts law, employees who suffer injuries in the workplace can often recover workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). In exchange for such statutory protections, they lose the right to seek civil damages from their employers for personal injuries. They can, however, seek compensation from other parties that contributed to their injuries. If they do, such parties are barred from seeking indemnity from the injured party’s employer by the exclusivity provision of the Act, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you suffered harm at work, it is in your best interest to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to determine what benefits you may be owed.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the employee, while working for the employer, visited a third-party property to empty a dumpster manufactured by the defendant. When he was emptying its contents, the dumpster fell onto him, causing him to sustain injuries to the lower half of his body. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. In turn, the defendant filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against the employer, arguing that it was liable on theories of contractual and common law indemnification.

The Exclusivity Provision of the Act Bars Third Party Claims Against Employers

The court denied the defendant’s motion to the extent that it sought to pursue common law indemnification claims against the employer. The court explained that motions for leave to join third-party defendants will not be granted when doing so would be futile. It elaborated that such a motion would be futile if the third-party complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Generally, workers’ compensation laws are enacted by state rather than federal legislatures. This does not mean that state workers’ compensation laws do not apply to federal employers. As noted in a recent ruling issued by the United State Supreme Court, however, a state workers’ compensation statute cannot treat the federal government or its contractors less favorably than state employers. If you were injured while working for the federal government, you may be owed workers’ compensation benefits, and you should consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that in 2018, a state passed a workers’ compensation law that applied only to specific workers at a federal facility within the state who worked, either directly or indirectly, for the United States. The facility in question used to manufacture nuclear weapons but was in the process of being decontaminated. Most of the workers involved in the cleanup process were federal contractors or employees.

The United States brought a lawsuit against the state on the grounds that the law in question was unconstitutional. Specifically, the United States argued that it discriminated against the federal government in violation of the Supremacy Clause because it made it easier for federal workers to establish their right to workers’ compensation benefits, thereby increasing the government’s costs. The court found in favor of the state, and the United States appealed. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Massachusetts employees who suffer workplace injuries can typically recover workers’ compensation benefits from their employers pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act).  In exchange for the right to receive such benefits, however, they are generally precluded from pursuing civil claims for work-related injuries against their employers by the Act’s exclusivity provision. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed the applicability of the exclusivity provision with regard to claims asserting harm caused by negligence supervision and hiring. If you were injured at work, it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer about what benefits you may be able to recover.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, her former employer, in which she alleged that the defendant failed to provide a safe workplace and asserted claims of negligent hiring and supervision, among other things. The defendant moved to dismiss the aforementioned claims on the grounds that they were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act.

The Exclusivity Provision of the Act

The court agreed with the defendant’s assertion and granted its motion to dismiss. The court noted that the exclusivity provision of the Act is a comprehensive preemption that precludes injured workers from pursuing tort actions that arise out of employment related injuries that are compensable through the payment of workers’ compensation benefits under the Act. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Most Massachusetts employers have an obligation to provide employees who suffer injuries while working benefits. While in most cases, the benefits owed are pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, in some instances, other rules apply. For example, pursuant to federal common law, boat owners have an obligation to provide care for their employees who fall ill while working on their vessels. A Massachusetts court recently examined the “duty of cure” imposed on boat owners in a case in which the plaintiff argued he was not adequately paid for his medical care. If you were hurt while working, you might be owed benefits, and it is in your best interest to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer about your potential claims.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff contracted an infection while he was working on the defendant’s boat. He was hospitalized and received inpatient care for six months. He sought payment for his medical expenses from the defendant pursuant to the federal common law obligation in admiralty law referred to as the duty of cure. The defendant paid the plaintiff’s expenses in part, but failed to compensate him for the entire cost of his care. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that it breached its duty of cure. The court entered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Benefits Available to Boat Workers Injured While Working Under Admiralty Law

The trial court ruling was largely reversed on appeal. The court explained that it was a general principle of admiralty law, that if a person working on a boat falls ill or is injured, the vessel owners are liable for the worker’s maintenance and cure. The court noted that although maintenance and cure are often referred to as a single duty, there were two distinct aspects. Continue reading →