Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), employees who are hurt on the job are eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits that cover the cost of their medical care and compensate them for lost wages. As explained in a recent Massachusetts ruling, such benefits may be recoverable regardless of whether an employee is suspended from work for cause. If you suffered harm while working, you might be able to recover workers’ compensation benefits, and it is advisable to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about what benefits your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the claimant worked for the defendant as a paramedic and emergency medical technician for over twenty years before he suffered a debilitating ankle injury while transporting a patient. He filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits and received payments for close to one year. The defendant then suspended him without pay indefinitely after learning that he had been indicted on charges of diverting and misusing controlled substances.

Allegedly, the defendant, a self-insured municipal employer, discontinued the claimant’s workers’ compensation payments as well. The defendant then moved for the Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA) to restore the payments. The DIA granted his motion, but the defendant refused to comply with the order requiring it to pay the claimant workers’ compensation benefits. The defendant appealed, and the court ruled in its favor, dismissing the enforcement actions. The claimant appealed. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) protects employees in that it allows them to recover workers’ compensation benefits following workplace injuries. It is important to note, however, that only employees are afforded such rights. In other words, independent contractors, volunteers, and other non-employee workers cannot recover benefits under the Act. A Massachusetts court recently explained the factors weighed in determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor in a case in which it ultimately denied the claimant’s claim for benefits. If you were hurt while working, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to determine whether you may be owed benefits.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the claimant began working for a newspaper delivery service in 2001. She signed numerous contracts throughout the years that defined her as an independent contractor. Under the terms of the contract, she could make deliveries at any time and in any order, as long as they were completed by a certain time. She used her own car to make deliveries and was paid for each newspaper she delivered.

It is reported that the claimant’s contract was not exclusive, and she was permitted to make deliveries for other companies as well. In September 2010, the claimant fell and injured her right hand and knee when she was making deliveries. She fell again in January 2011, sustaining injuries that required surgery and hospitalization. She filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits in 2012, and the insurer objected. An administrative judge ultimately ruled that the claimant was an independent contractor and was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The reviewing board affirmed, and the claimant appealed. Continue reading →

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 →

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 →

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.

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 →

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 →

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 →

While many Massachusetts employers provide their employees with a safe and respectful work environment, some do not.  Fortunately, the law provides avenues through which people who suffer harm or injustices at work can seek justice.  The laws regarding the process of seeking damages and benefits are strict, however.  For example, the Massachusetts workers’ compensation act (the Act) largely prohibits employees from seeking damages from their employers in civil lawsuits for personal injuries.  Notably, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts ruling, this includes claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  If you suffered losses at work, it is advisable to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to determine your options for seeking justice.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, her employer, in which she asserted numerous employment discrimination claims.  She also asserted state law claims, including a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The defendant moved for summary judgment asserting, among other things, that the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act.

Emotional Distress Claims in the Context of the Workers’ Compensation Framework

The court ultimately agreed with the defendant with regard to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.  The court explained that the Act is the sole remedy for common law personal injury claims that arise out of employment.  Specifically, it provides that an employee shall be deemed to have waived their right to pursue personal injury claims for damages that arise under the common law or under any other law with respect to an injury that is compensable under the Act. Continue reading →

It is well-established that the Massachusetts workers’ compensation act (the Act) affords people the right to recover benefits from their employers for work-related harm. If an employer or their insurer unjustly denies an employee benefits, the employee may be able to pursue claims against them. They must do so within the workers’ compensation framework, however, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts opinion. If you suffered injuries at work, it is prudent to contact a  Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to determine your options for seeking justice.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff worked as a chemist for the employer. In 2013, he suffered injuries when he was exposed to toxic chemicals when working due to poor ventilation in his work area. He subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim, despite efforts to dissuade him from doing so. He asserted that his employer’s workers’ compensation attorney mishandled his claim and wrongfully refused to pay him benefits, however. As such, he filed a civil lawsuit against them, asserting unfair trade practices and defamation claims. The defendants moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing his claims were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act.

The Exclusivity of the Act

The court agreed with the defendants’ reasoning and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. Specifically, the court stated that all of the plaintiff’s claims were precluded because his sole remedy was through the Act. The court explained that it was undisputed that the plaintiff was an employee of the employer, he suffered harm that constituted a personal injury as defined by the Act, and it occurred during the course of his employment. Continue reading →