Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers Compensation Act, employers have an obligation to provide employees that suffer work-related harm with medical benefits. Typically, such benefits include prescription medications. While the rules regarding medical benefits seem to be straightforward, workers’ compensation claims can become complicated when they involve drugs that are unlawful in certain capacities. For example, a Massachusetts court recently addressed the issue of whether a workers’ compensation insurer had an obligation to reimburse an injured employee for the cost of medical marijuana. If you were hurt at work you might be eligible to recover workers’ compensation benefits, and you should contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to examine your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that in 2014, the plaintiff suffered an injury while working. Facts regarding the nature of the plaintiff’s work and the harm he sustained were not provided. He subsequently filed a claim with his employer’s workers’ compensation employer, seeking reimbursement for the cost of medical marijuana that he used to treat pain associated with his work injury. An administrative judge denied his claim. The denial was affirmed by the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents. He then sought review from the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Medical Benefits Under Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Law

Upon review, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the decision of the reviewing board. The court found that, pursuant to prevailing Massachusetts case law, a workers’ compensation insurer cannot be compelled to pay for an injured employee’s medical marijuana expenses based on the terms of the marijuana act. Continue reading →

It is not uncommon for a person to suffer injuries while working due to the negligent acts of their coworker. In such instances, the injured party may seek to recover both workers’ compensation benefits and civil damages. Whether they are owed both depends on numerous factors, though, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts ruling issued in a case in which a police officer was injured during on-the-job training. If you were harmed due to the negligence of a co-worker, you could be owed workers’ compensation benefits, and it is wise to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney concerning your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff, a police officer, was attending firearm training that was conducted by a co-worker. During a paid break, the co-worker got into his car and began to drive toward the gun range. He accelerated and lost control of his vehicle and ultimately struck the plaintiff, pinning him against a picnic table. The plaintiff filed a claim for benefits under GL 152, which were akin to workers’ compensation benefits for police officers injured in the line of duty. His claim was approved.

Allegedly, the plaintiff subsequently sent a written demand letter to the town’s insurer, arguing that his co-worker’s negligence caused him to suffer harm and, therefore, the insurer owed him damages. The insurer rejected his demand, arguing that the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (the Act) precluded him from recovering damages. It then filed a declaratory judgment action. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, and the insurer appealed. Continue reading →

Generally, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act provides that employees that suffer work-related harm can recover workers’ compensation benefits. There are some workers, however, that fall outside of the scope of the Act, like police officers and firefighters. Fortunately, numerous Massachusetts laws allow public servants to recover benefits that are akin to workers’ compensation benefits. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed eligibility for such benefits in a case in which an injured firefighter sought compensation after he was injured on the job. If you sustained damages while working, you may be owed benefits, and you should consider meeting with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney regarding your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff worked as a firefighter for a Massachusetts town. He suffered injuries in 2009. The town’s insurer made payments to the plaintiff from 2009 through 2014. After the payments ended, the plaintiff made a claim for benefits under M.G.L.A. 32 § 85H ½. The town denied the claim arguing that the plaintiff was not eligible for such benefits, as the town did not accept the provisions of the statute until after the plaintiff’s injury occurred. The matter was brought before a court, which ruled that the town was owed the plaintiff benefits, as his injury did not have to post-date the town’s acceptance of the statute. The town appealed.

Firemen’s Eligibility for Benefits Following Work Injuries

The question on appeal was what date applied for determining eligibility for benefits under M.G.L.A. 32 § 85H ½. The appellate court ultimately agreed with the town and reversed the trial court ruling. The appellate court noted that its primary duty in interpreting a law is to effectuate the intent of the legislature in enacting it. If the statutory language is unambiguous and plain, its intent is evident. When the language of a law is unclear or vague, however, the court will assess the cause of its enactment to determine its intent. Continue reading →

Generally, while people hurt on the job can recover workers’ compensation benefits under Massachusetts law, they are precluded from pursuing civil claims against their employers. As such, if an injured employee files negligence claims against their employer, the employer may respond by filing a motion to dismiss. When parties ask the court to dismiss a claim at the onset of a case via a motion to dismiss, the courts are limited to evaluating the assertions set forth in the complaint. Thus, it is improper for an employer to rely on extrinsic materials to support their argument. This was demonstrated recently in a Massachusetts ruling in which the appellate court reversed a trial court ruling due to the fact that it relied on improper evidence. If you were hurt at work, you have the right to seek workers’ compensation benefits, and you should speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

The Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant through a staffing agency and worked in one of the defendant’s facilities. When he was cleaning a work area, his hand got caught in a machine, causing him to sustain injuries. OSHA conducted an investigation after the accident, which revealed that another worker had removed the safety guard on the machine and neglected to replace it. OSHA also concluded that the defendant created the hazard and holds oversight over the employees.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim and received benefits from the staffing agency’s insurer. He subsequently filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant, alleging its negligence caused his harm. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim and attached numerous documents to its motion that showed the plaintiff waived the right to pursue any claims covered by workers’ compensation laws. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

It is well-established under Massachusetts law that the Worker’s Compensation Act (the Act) is the exclusive remedy for people who suffer work-related harm. It is not always clear, however, what constitutes harm as defined by the Act. Recently, a Massachusetts court addressed the question of whether the Act precluded an employee from pursuing intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against their employer. If you sustained injuries in the workplace, you may be owed workers’ compensation benefits, and you should confer with a dedicated Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a technician. The defendant reassigned the plaintiff to the night shift numerous times, despite the plaintiff’s request to remain on the day shift due to his ongoing anxiety and depression. Eventually, the plaintiff was terminated. He filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, infliction of emotional distress that was intentional, and other claims. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, arguing it was barred by the Act. The court agreed and granted the motion.

Personal Injury as Defined by the Act

The Act provides the sole remedy for Massachusetts workplace claims for personal injury. In other words, it bars common law causes of action that fall within its scope. The court explained that the exclusivity provision of the Act applies where it is established that the plaintiff is an employee, the plaintiff’s condition is a personal injury as the Act defines the term, and it is shown that the injury arose in the course of and out of employment. Continue reading →

The Workers’ Compensation Act is the sole remedy for Massachusetts employees who sustain harm at work. In other words, they cannot pursue civil claims for damages against their employers for harm that they suffered at work. They can seek compensation from other parties that caused or contributed to their harm, however. In such instances, the parties will often disagree as to whether any workers’ compensation claim arising out of the same incident as the lawsuit is relevant. This was the case in a recent Massachusetts personal injury matter in which the court permitted the plaintiff to preclude information regarding his workers’ compensation claim. If you were hurt at work, you could be owed benefits from your employer and damages from other parties, and it is in your best interest to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff sustained injuries in a slip and fall accident that occurred in the parking lot of his employer. He subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim and was awarded benefits. At the same time, he filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant, asserting that the defendant’s failure to properly clear the ice and snow on the parking lot caused his accident and subsequent harm. The parties in the civil case conducted discovery, during which the plaintiff produced his workers’ compensation records. Prior to trial, the parties filed numerous motions in limine in which they asked the court to determine what evidence could be used at trial; two of the motions pertained to the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation records.

Evidence of Workers’ Compensation Claims in Personal Injury Matters

The court first dealt with the plaintiff’s motion in which he requested a ruling that prohibited the introduction of evidence relating to his receipt of workers’ compensation benefits, noting that the defendant did not file a response to the motion. Thus, the court granted it as unopposed. The plaintiff also asked the court to prohibit the plaintiff from introducing any evidence related to other harm he suffered at work or workers’ compensation claims he filed following other work accidents on the grounds that it was prejudicial and irrelevant. Continue reading →

People that suffer injuries at work do not always agree with their employers as to how their workers’ compensation claims should be handled. Merely because a party disagrees with the administration of their claim, though, does not mean that they have the right to pursue claims against their employer under other causes of action. This was demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts opinion in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s civil claims against his employer that arose out of a dispute over the settlement of his workers’ compensation claim. If you sustained injuries at work, you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer regarding your rights.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was convicted of workers’ compensation fraud. He then filed a civil lawsuit against representatives of his former employer, his former employer, and other entities, alleging that they conspired to extort funds from him while they were in the process of negotiating his workers’ compensation claim settlement and that his lump sump workers’ compensation settlement was the product of extortion. In his complaint, he alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, loss of consortium, and violations of the unfair trade practices act claims. The defendant employers moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s emotional distress and violation of the unfair trade practice act claims via summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, and he appealed.

Exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Act

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling on the motion for summary judgment. The court noted that even assuming the conduct alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint was true, it arose out of his employment and the administration of his workers’ compensation claim. Thus, such allegations were fundamentally encompassed within the overall framework of workers’ compensation and fell outside of the cope of unfair or deceptive business practices between arms-length entities as alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint. Continue reading →

If you sustain harm in the workplace, you may be prescribed medication to treat your injuries and manage the pain. Pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, employees who are injured on the job in are entitled not only to weekly wage loss benefits to replace their missed pay, but also reimbursements for medical expenditures that arise out of their injuries. Despite the clear provisions of the act, however, many insurers try to refuse coverage for medical procedures and medications, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts workers’ compensation case. If you were hurt at work, it is smart to contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation to discuss what benefits you may be owed.

The Claimant’s Harm

It is alleged that the employee suffered harm in an accident during a company barbecue. Specifically, he slipped and injured his left knee. He attempted to resume work but was unable to do so. He subsequently underwent numerous surgeries on his ankle and knee. He filed a claim for  workers’ compensation benefits. The court found that the claimant’s harm was work related, and ordered the insurer to pay the claimant benefits for any medical care that was reasonable and necessary, including prescriptions. The insurer appealed the lower court’s decision to award benefits and medical reimbursement payments, arguing the connection between the alleged harm and the treatment sought was not clear.

Medical Benefits in Workers’ Compensation Cases

On appeal, the insurer argued the award of workers’ compensation benefits was improper, as the lower court judge failed to conduct an adequate analysis of the causal relationship between the damage and the treatment. It further claimed that the lower court misinterpreted information about the claimant’s obesity status. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts workers’ compensation system is intended to assist injured workers with the costs and hardships that arise as a result of an on-the-job accident. However, benefits are only available to employees harmed while performing their job obligations. When an accident occurs while the employee is on their way to or from work, proving benefits should be granted can be challenging. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed what evidence an employee must produce to show that an injury that happened while they were traveling is job related. If you were hurt at work, you should contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to assist you in determining if you are eligible to recover benefits.

The Claimant’s Harm

It is reported that the claimant was working as a nurse pursuant at the time of her injuries. Her company assigned her to work in a rehab facility in Vermont, although she lived in Massachusetts. She drove home from Vermont at the end of each five-day stint, assuming she would be reimbursed for her lodging and meals for the whole five-day period. She did not request reimbursement for travel expenditures because she believed the policy was unclear and that she was not obligated to show receipts.

Allegedly, the claimant was leaving her five-day duty and traveling back to her home in Massachusetts on the day of the accident. Specifically, on the way home, she was injured in an accident that necessitated multiple operations and rehabilitation. She was seriously hurt and has no recollection of the accident. She sought workers’ compensation benefits, but her employer’s insurer argued that she was not owed benefits because she was not working at the time of the accident. A judge ruled in favor of the claimant, and the insurer appealed. Continue reading →

Workplace injuries can, in certain situations, be cured with adequate rest and therapy. In some cases, though, a workplace injury is serious enough to result in lasting disabilities. The Massachusetts workers’ compensation system is intended to compensate employees for lost pay and reimburse them for medical expenses while they recover. Cases involving severe and lasting injuries, though, can become complicated, and insurers may dispute whether continuing care is necessary. This was demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts workers’ compensation case, in which an insurer attempted to avoid paying an employee benefits. If you were harmed at work, you should speak to a skilled Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney regarding your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the claimant sustained traumatic injuries while working in a psychiatric ward of a hospital. He was attacked by a patient, who continuously kicked him until he passed out. He needed continuous medical care for a right leg fracture, deep vein thrombosis, persistent pain, and instability as a result of the attack, and sought workers’ compensation benefits. The judge granted the worker’s application for benefits but noted a variety of pre-existing diseases that were not linked to the accident in the award, like the claimant’s degenerative arthritis of the spine. The judge ultimately determined that the employee’s pre-existing conditions did not increase the need for treatment or the duration of his disability.

Reportedly, the claimant filed a claim for additional benefits. Based on the facts presented at the hearing, the judge found that the worker suffered severe injuries, and was permanently and fully incapacitated as a result of the attack. He further stated that his findings did not change the judge’s previous decision that the employee’s pre-existing ailments were unrelated to the attack. The insurer filed an appeal. Continue reading →