Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

While most people injured on the job will seek workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to a state workers’ compensation act, federal employees may pursue benefits for their harm under the Federal Employee Liability Act (FELA). Whether a court can exercise jurisdiction over a FELA claim depends on numerous factors, including their contacts within the state. Even if a company merely registers to do business within a state, jurisdiction may be proper. As discussed in a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court, a state statute that requires businesses to consent to personal jurisdiction in a state and does not violate due process. If you are a federal employee and suffered harm while working, you may be owed benefits, and you should speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant invoking the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff alleged that he had been exposed to cancer-causing substances while working for the company in Ohio and Virginia over the course of 27 years. Although the plaintiff was not exposed to the substances in Pennsylvania, he sued the defendant in a Pennsylvania court, arguing that the court had jurisdiction over the defendant because it had registered to do business in Pennsylvania.

Allegedly, Pennsylvania law dictates that a foreign corporation has to register with the Department of State of the Commonwealth before conducting business in the state and that, in doing so, they consent to personal jurisdiction within the state. The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court agreed and deemed the statute in question unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed. The plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts workers’ compensation Act (the Act) grants employees the right to recover benefits for work injuries. In order to recover such benefits, though, they must prove that their harm is work-related. In other words, injuries caused by other factors are not compensable, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt while at work, it is in your best interest to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant for thirty-five years as a truck driver. He suffered two knee injuries and a blood clot in his lower left leg during his employment. Prior to these injuries, he already had progressive degenerative arthritis in both knees. An independent medical examiner conducted an examination and concluded that there was a causal connection between the work-related incidents and the employee’s diagnoses. The IME’s report stated that the work-related injuries, combined with the preexisting arthritis, caused the employee’s complaints, disability, and need for treatment.

It is reported that the plaintiff’s doctor recommended knee replacements, and he sought medical benefits from the defendant to cover the cost. The defendant raised a defense based on the “combination injury” provision of the Act due to the employee’s preexisting arthritis. The administrative judge determined that the defendant had met its burden of production on this issue, and it was up to the employee to prove that the arthritis was caused by a compensable injury or disease or that the work-related injuries were a major cause of his disability or need for treatment. The judge ultimately denied the plaintiff’s claims because the IME could not state with reasonable certainty that the presence of arthritis was caused by his work injuries. The board affirmed the denial, and the employee appealed. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, people hurt at work can typically recover workers’ compensation benefits from their employer. The right to recover such benefits precludes them from pursuing tort claims for their harm, however. The parameters of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) was the topic of a recent Massachusetts ruling in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s emotional distress claim. If you suffered injuries while working, you should meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to discuss your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant from January 2014 to January  2015. He regularly organized “speaker meetings” where doctors would meet with patients to discuss illnesses and the defendant’s products. These meetings, held at least once a year, often had the same information and recurring attendees. Standard slides were provided to physicians for these meetings.

Allegedly, In October 2014, a meeting was held. Only two families attended, and both families stated they did not want to see the slides as they had seen them before. The plaintiff submitted a report afterward indicating that the slides were not shown. He was then terminated for cause, specifically, the failure to comply with the “mandatory” requirement of showing the slides at the October 18 meeting. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for emotional distress and other losses. The defendant removed the case to federal based on diversity jurisdiction and filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint, arguing that the exclusivity clause of the Act barred the plaintiff’s emotional distress claims. Continue reading →

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, employees that suffer injuries while working have the right to seek medical and disability benefits. In exchange for the right to recover such benefits, however, they are precluded from pursuing claims against their employers for damages arising from workplace injuries. As discussed in a recent Massachusetts ruling, this includes emotional distress claims. If you sustained harm at work, it is important to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about what benefits you may be owed.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed as a teacher at the defendant’s school district. In her fourteenth year of employment, she advocated for improved environmental and working conditions. That same year, she received a worse performance review than she had in the previous decade. After she appealed the review, it was changed to exemplary, but she was nonetheless transferred to a different school.

Allegedly, as the union representative, the plaintiff was asked to advocate for increased staffing and monitoring of the students to improve the educational environment. Her meeting with the superintendent was canceled, and she was subsequently placed on leave and escorted from the school by the police. She developed an autoimmune disorder that was attributed to stress and anxiety. She then filed a lawsuit against the employer, asserting, inter alia, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss her claim. Continue reading →

Massachusetts law requires employers to provide or obtain workers’ compensation insurance. If they fail to do so, they may face significant penalties, including debarment or the cessation of all business operations. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed the basis for debarment in a matter in which an employer argued that the Commonwealth lacked justification for imposing the penalty. If you were hurt at work and have questions about your rights with regard to workers’ compensation benefits, it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Case Background

It is reported that a Department of Industrial Accidents investigator was working in the area of the employer’s facility and decided to visit the business. Upon doing so, it discovered that the employer’s workers’ compensation policy was canceled. As such, the investigator issued a stop work order. The employer, who stated he was unaware the policy had been canceled, had coverage reinstated the following day.

Allegedly, the Department of Industrial Accidents nonetheless stated that debarment was nondiscretionary and automatic under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. The employer appealed the stop work order, but the court affirmed the Department’s decision. The employer then appealed. Continue reading →

While some workplace injuries cause immediate symptoms, others do not cause pain until well after the injury occurred. In such instances, it can be difficult to prove that the injury is compensable under the Workers Compensation Act. The key inquiry in cases involving enduring injuries is whether the harm in question is work-related. Recently, a Massachusetts court assessed what evidence is needed to establish a causal relationship between an industrial accident and a claimant’s harm in a matter in which it ultimately found in favor of the claimant. If you sustained injuries in the workplace, you could be owed benefits, and you should meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the claimant suffered an injury while working as a heavy equipment mechanic. The injury caused a stabbing pain in the claimant’s shoulders, neck, and upper back. He received a cortisone shot and underwent surgery for his right shoulder, but his pain continued. The claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim, which he ultimately settled. He continued to feel bilateral pain in his shoulders and filed a second claim for medical benefits.

Allegedly, a physician performed an IME on the claimant and found that his pain was secondary to his work injury, noting he did not report shoulder pain until one year after the injury occurred. Following a hearing, the administrative judge found that the claimant’s shoulder injury was causally related to the subject accident and ordered the employer’s insurer to pay all reasonable medical expenses associated with the injury. The insurer appealed, and the reviewing board reversed the administrative judge’s decision. The claimant then appealed. Continue reading →

It is not uncommon for people to suffer injuries in slip-and-fall accidents in the workplace. People who sustain such harm may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. If it is later determined that their injuries have resolved, however, their benefits may be discontinued. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed grounds for discontinuing disability benefits in a case in which it denied a workers’ appeal. If you were hurt while working, it is advisable to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your potential recovery of benefits.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the claimant suffered an injury while working for the employer. Specifically, she sustained a back strain, ankle sprain, and hip contusion when she slipped and fell on a throw rug. Her employer accepted liability for her injury and began paying her temporary incapacity benefits. One year later, the employer moved to discontinue the benefits. An administrative judge denied the request, after which the employer appealed.

It is reported that the claimant then submitted to an IME; the doctor found that the claimant had fully recovered from her work injuries. The administrative judge found the claimant’s injuries to be medically complicated, however, and allowed the parties to offer additional medical evidence. Ultimately, the court found in favor of the employer. The claimant then appealed. Continue reading →

The two key components of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) are the protections it offers employers who suffer injuries while working and the prohibitions against those same employees seeking damages in tort actions against their employers. The courts broadly construe the exclusivity provision of the Act and will dismiss any claim that runs afoul of the provision, as shown in a recent Massachusetts case. If you sustained losses due to a workplace injury, it is in your best interest to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer about your options for seeking redress.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff worked for the defendant at its car dealership. The plaintiff, who worked as a salesperson, suffered injuries when his immediate supervisor assaulted him. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against his supervisor and the defendant, seeking compensation for his harm. As to the defendant, he asserted it was vicariously liable for the acts of the supervisor; he set forth negligent hiring and supervision claims against the defendant as well. Following discovery, the defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that they were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Claims Barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act

The exclusivity provision is both broadly construed and the keystone of the Act. The court explained that the legislature has had ample chances to narrow the scope of the provision over the years but has declined to do so. Continue reading →

People who suffer injuries in workplace accidents can often recover benefits pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). While the Act typically prohibits them from pursuing civil actions against their employers for their injuries, they may be able to recover damages from third parties. Notably, employees have the right to seek workers’ compensation benefits and redress in tort actions against third parties regardless of their immigration status in this Country, as explained in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt in an accident while working, it is in your best interest to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to determine your rights as soon as possible.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff suffered injuries when he fell from a ladder while working on the roof of a three-story residential building. Specifically, he suffered fractures to the skull, dissection of the vertebral artery, hematomas of the brain, and other harm. Due to the severity of his injuries, he was unable to work. He subsequently sought and received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer’s insurer.

It is reported that the plaintiff then filed tort claims against numerous defendants, alleging their negligence brought about his harm. During a deposition, the defense attorney asked the plaintiff about his immigration status. The plaintiff declined to answer, and the defendants then moved to compel him to submit to questioning about his immigration status. Continue reading →

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), employers have an obligation to provide workers’ compensation benefits to employees that suffer injuries while working. IN exchange for the right to recover such benefits, however, employees are precluded from filing civil claims seeking damages for personal injuries against their employers. The Massachusetts courts strictly construe the exclusivity provisions of the Act and will dismiss any claims barred by the exclusivity provision, as illustrated in a recent Massachusetts opinion. If you were injured in a work-related activity, you could be owed benefits, and it would be advantageous for you to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was diagnosed with legionnaire’s disease in December 2014 because of exposure to contaminated water in the workplace following an industrial accident in which a compressor exploded, distributing water vapor and dust into the air. His illness was promptly reported to the Massachusetts Department of Health and Public Safety (MDHPS), and he submitted a claim to the Department of Industrial Accidents.

The plaintiff alleged that his employer, the MDHPS, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) were required to conduct an investigation which meant, in part, that they had to collect and analyze water samples but failed to do so. As such, he asserted claims against them in a civil lawsuit, arguing that they failed to protect his safety and that of his coworkers and violated his civil rights. The defendant employer moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, arguing that they were barred by the Act. Continue reading →