Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

To recover damages after a Massachusetts accident happens at work or in a public place, four things must be shown: duty, a breach of that duty, causation connecting the breach to the injuries, and the cost of those injuries. The first element of a personal injury case, duty, exists if the alleged at-fault party owed a duty under the law to the person who was injured. If the at-fault party fails to uphold their duty, like a reckless driver or a grocery store that left a spill on the floor, the party could be liable to anyone who suffers an injury that resulted from the breach. Once the injury is connected to the failure to uphold the duty by law, the costs associated with the injury must be shown to recover damages.

In Stefflin vs. Pinncon, LLC (14-P-1114), an injured construction worker pursued damages against the general contractor and first-tier subcontractor. The worker alleged that the contractor and subcontractor failed to provide a safe work environment. The injured worker was a drywall finisher and taper, but the other parties required him to use a scissor lift instead of a knuckle boom lift to access certain parts of the ceiling. The worker said he injured himself while using the scissor lift when he reached over the railing with the sander and heard a “pop,” suffering abdominal pain. He later underwent surgery for a large ventral hernia and suffered complications from that and additional surgeries. The worker could not return to work and claimed permanent disability.

At trial, the judge excluded results from an Independent Medical Examination (IME) from the evidence of the injuries the worker suffered. The judge ruled that they were merely cumulative of the expert and medical evidence. When the case went to the jury, the jury determined that the general contractor and subcontractor did not fail to provide a safe work environment and therefore were not negligent. Because of this finding, the jury found for the defendants, and the injured worker did not recover damages from the general contractor and subcontractor.
Continue reading →

When a workplace accident completely removes your ability to work, you may qualify for permanent and total incapacity benefits through workers’ compensation. These are also known as § 34A benefits. In Downing vs. Davenport Realty Trust (Bd. No. 026102-11), the board reviewed a decision awarding an employee §§ 13, 30, 34, and 34A benefits. In this case, the insurer objected to the finding of the administrative judge, who relied upon the testimony of the injured employee and the testimony of a doctor who examined him.

The employee sustained a work-related L4-5 disc herniation. He was 63 years old at the time of the hearing, and he had spent most of his work life at unskilled to semi-skilled employment in physically demanding occupations. During the administrative hearing, the injured worker testified that he had previously been able to do heavy work, including lifting up to 200 pounds, but now he had trouble lifting as much as 10 pounds. The judge made a formal finding that the employee’s pain disturbed his sleep and that his herniated discs were related to an injury sustained at work.

The judge did stop short of adopting the examining doctor’s opinion on the extent of the injured worker’s disability. Instead, she relied upon a separate testifying doctor’s opinion, which concluded that he was totally disabled from work. The last thing considered was the testimony of a vocational rehabilitation expert, who opined that the injured employee could not earn wages due to his work-related injury. Lost wages were awarded for a year, and § 34A benefits were awarded following that period.
Continue reading →

After a workplace accident, an injured worker can file a claim for lost wages in addition to payments for medical expenses. The Commonwealth’s statute provides a formula for calculating the wages, which incorporates the “average weekly wage” (AWW). These are known as § 34 benefits. In a recent board decision, Harris v. Mass. Gen. Hosp. (Bd. NO. 033040-11), an injured nurse sought to increase her § 34 benefits when she sustained a fractured kneecap after slipping on some wet flooring. She had been promoted and was scheduled to begin her new position around the new year, which included increased wages. Her injury occurred right before she was scheduled to begin her new position.

Immediately following the accident, the nurse sought lost wage benefits. She was granted them, based on the wage she was making prior to the fall. The injured nurse then filed a claim six months after the accident to obtain a retroactive readjustment and reinstatement of her § 34 benefits, using the new salary that would have begun two weeks after the accident. The judge awarded her the higher amount, concluding that the law provided him the flexibility to calculate the AWW using a wage that would have been earned during the time following the accident. The hospital, who was self-insured, appealed the decision.

The reviewing board agreed with the hospital’s argument that the AWW is not calculated based on future wages, even if they are “certain” in this case because the injured nurse was already promoted to a position with a known wage. The reviewing board analyzed the history of prior cases and decisions, which have used a number of ways to calculate future wages, but only wages made before the accident. Examples included using four weeks of past wages, using two weeks of past full-time wages, and even using just one day of full-time wages when an employee changed from part-time to permanent full-time on the day of the accident. The board concluded that Massachusetts law allows for all types of full-time wages to be considered, but only if they had been earned prior to or at the time of the accident. The board felt that the definition of the AWW could not be stretched to include wages that have not yet been earned.
Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act was designed to provide prompt financial relief to an injured worker or deceased worker’s family if a work-related accident occurs. Workers’ compensation claims and appeals are handled through a separate system and do not go through any of the standard civil court processes until all the administrative portions are concluded. Recently, the Appeals Court in Merchants Insurance Group vs. Spicer (14-P-798) ruled in favor of the injured worker after an insurance company attempted to stop benefits through an action in Superior Court.

The worker was seriously injured while working as a landscaper and sought workers’ compensation. His hand was dismembered by a log splitting machine. His medical bills were over $700,000, and his treatment was ongoing. The insurer for the employer providing the benefits contested the claim, but the administrative judge for the Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA) granted the injured landscaper temporary total incapacity and medical benefits, pending a formal hearing and ruling. The insurer, following an appeal of that order, also sought to have the policies rescinded in Superior Court, claiming the injured worker’s employer materially misrepresented the information provided on the applications for policies. The insurer claimed it had no duty to indemnify the employer and sought damages of the amounts already paid to the injured worker.

The injured worker and the employer did not formally object to the proceedings in Superior Court, and the judge entered a summary judgment in favor of the insurer. As part of the order, the judge ruled that the insurer did not have to pay any of the sums on the claims arising out of the injured worker’s claims. The insurer took the judgment to the DIA, which denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss the suit. As its reasoning, the administrative judge ruled that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction, that the employee was not a party to the initial application (and alleged misrepresentation) with the insurer, that the insurer did not terminate the policy according to statute, and that as a matter of public policy the judge did not want to encourage insurers circumventing the administrative process by going to the Superior Court.
Continue reading →

When an injury occurs in the workplace, financial concerns of how to pay for the medical bills and daily expenses quickly appear. When an injury takes an employee away from work for an extended period of time, maximizing the amount of workers’ compensation is in the victim’s and victim’s family’s best interest. A pair of recent appellate cases, Joseph F. Driscoll’s Case (14-P-776) and Driscoll v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (14-P-420) analyzed whether a city employee’s injury was considered ongoing, and whether or not he was entitled to accidental retirement benefits.

The injured employee hurt his back when he jumped into a garbage truck while working for the city’s highway department. He sought benefits from his employer, which was self-insured, and was paid weekly incapacity benefits for two months immediately following the injury. The injured employee also sought ongoing workers’ compensation benefits and accidental retirement benefits. The ongoing workers’ compensation benefits were initially denied by the self-insurer and the Dept. of Industrial Accidents (DIA). The ALJ at the DIA did grant temporary total incapacitation benefits, extending from the date of the accident to approximately nine months afterward. The Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) and the Division of Law Appeals (DALA) both denied the injured employee’s request for accidental disability retirement benefits. The injured employee, seeking to maximize the benefits available, appealed both decisions.
Continue reading →

Workers’ compensation may be available in different forms, depending on who your employer might be. If you work in construction, your claim would likely be filed through your employer’s insurance company and benefits reviewed through the boards and hearing officers under Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation Act. If you are employed as a civilian defense contractor through the United States Government, and are hurt or killed while working in construction or work related to national defense, war activities, or a public use of the U.S., you or a qualified family member can file a claim through the Defense Base Act (DBA), which is an extension of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Like state workers’ compensation claims, the injury or death-causing accident generally occurs during the course of employment. However, under the DBA, an exception exists for injuries caused while in a “zone of special danger,” where it isn’t necessary for the injury to occur during work hours or during activities that would ultimately benefit the employer.

In Battelle Memorial Institute v. Dicecca (No. 14-1742), the First Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed whether an injury occurred in a zone of special danger in an appeal by an employer and its insurance company. The petitioners in this case argued against the award of death benefits under the DBA granted by the Benefits Review Board (Board) to the widow of a contract employee in Tbilisi, Georgia. Her husband was allowed a special stipend for vouchers to use on taxis to get around the city for any purpose, whether professional or personal, and was provided an extra 25% salary supplement for “hardship pay” for working in conditions that are unusually difficult or dangerous, or facilities that are inadequate. The man was traveling to a grocery store 20 minutes away when another driver hit his taxi and killed him. The wife filed suit for death benefits under the DBA, pointing to the special pay allotted for dangerous conditions as support for her claim, in addition to the perpetual “on call” nature of her spouse’s job.
Continue reading →

Under Massachusetts General Laws, an injured worker with serious, catastrophic injuries can qualify for permanent and total incapacity benefits. If an injured worker is still unable to work in any capacity after reaching maximum medical improvement, where he or she is unable to physically improve or recover even with additional surgery, that worker is entitled to benefits under the Commonwealth’s Workers’ Compensation Act. In King v. City of Newton, the Reviewing Board looked at an appeal filed by a self-insured employer who challenged the award of permanent and total incapacity benefits, disfigurement benefits, and reasonable and necessary medical expenses that included a motorized chair lift.

In this appeal, the focus centered on the testimony of the medical examiner and the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ’s) method of issuing findings and accepting the evidence presented. The injured employee worked in the school cafeteria, which is a party of the Massachusetts’ town’s school system. She slipped and fell while clearing tables, hitting one of the tables and harming her right leg. She was seen by the school nurse, who applied ice to her leg, and used a cane the next day to get around. The injured school worker was then told by her supervisor to seek medical treatment. She followed up and was diagnosed as suffering from a sprained ankle and bruising of her right knee and lower left ribs. The city then began to pay her temporary total incapacity benefits.

Sixteen months after these benefits, the self-insured city filed a complaint to discontinue the temporary benefits based on the report of the employer’s examining physician. The WCJ heard that motion in addition to the injured employee’s motion for the employer to pay for a motorized chair lift. At this hearing, the judge granted the request regarding the motorized chair lift and denied the employer’s request to discontinue weekly benefits Following this hearing, the employer appealed and the injured worker was examined again, this time by an impartial medical examiner. After receiving the impartial examiner’s report, the employer moved for a finding of inadequacy regarding the impartial examiner’s report.
Continue reading →

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 →