Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

Published on: |

Determining who qualifies as an “employer” under Massachusetts workers’ compensation law can be pivotal in personal injury litigation. When workplace injuries occur, the exclusive remedy provision under the Workers’ Compensation Act typically bars employees from bringing tort claims against their employers. In a recent decision, a federal appellate court found that an airline could not be sued for negligence by a flight attendant injured on duty, as it was deemed her employer for workers’ compensation purposes. If you sustained a workplace injury and are considering your legal options, it is important to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, a flight attendant, suffered serious back injuries while working on a commercial flight operated by a subsidiary of the defendant airline. The incident occurred during a sudden stop on the runway as the aircraft was taxiing at Boston’s Logan Airport. Although the plaintiff had applied for and was hired by the subsidiary company, she later sued the parent airline for negligence, alleging that it was a separate entity and thus subject to third-party liability under Massachusetts law.

It is further reported that the plaintiff began receiving workers’ compensation benefits shortly after the accident and eventually settled her claim through a lump sum payment. The compensation was paid by an insurance carrier that covered both the parent airline and its subsidiary. Despite the settlement, the plaintiff pursued a negligence action against the parent airline in Massachusetts state court, asserting that the airline was not her direct employer and, therefore, not protected by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Health care employees in Massachusetts who report misconduct may be entitled to whistleblower protections, but they are generally barred from pursuing tort claims arising from workplace incidents due to the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA). A recent Massachusetts case involving the termination of an emergency medical technician (EMT) demonstrates how this statutory exclusivity preempts even claims of emotional harm tied to workplace disputes. If you were hurt while working, you may be able to recover benefits for your harm, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, an EMT employed by a licensed ambulance company, responded to a call involving a patient with altered mental status. The EMT transported the patient alongside a partner, who allegedly failed to attend to the patient and was seen using a cell phone during the transport. Upon arrival at the hospital, the EMT discovered a fresh hemorrhagic wound on the patient’s arm, for which no explanation was provided by the partner.

Allegedly believing the injury to be the result of misconduct, the EMT photographed the wound using a personal cell phone and reported the incident to a field supervisor, who initially commended the EMT and requested copies of the photographs. The EMT complied and sent the images. However, reportedly after receiving no follow-up, the EMT filed a report with the Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS), citing suspected patient neglect. Shortly thereafter, the EMT was instructed to delete the images and was subsequently terminated for noncompliance with company policy.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers’ compensation laws often intersect with personal injury claims, particularly in complex cases involving travel or injuries that occur outside a worker’s usual place of employment. In such cases, both the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) and applicable state law can determine whether the injured party may proceed with a claim. A recent case illustrates the significant impact of choice-of-law decisions in the workers’ compensation context and the importance of timely filing within the relevant statute of limitations. If you were hurt while traveling for work, you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff, a Connecticut resident employed by a Massachusetts-based company, suffered an injury on a Delta Air Lines flight while traveling from Connecticut to Georgia for a work-related conference. Reportedly, the plaintiff’s employer, which had an office in Massachusetts, paid for the plaintiff’s travel, accommodations, and associated expenses as part of a continuing education program.

It is reported that while seated on the airplane, the plaintiff was struck by a beverage cart, which became unrestrained and collided with his knee. The incident allegedly led to significant pain, swelling, and, ultimately, a surgical procedure. The plaintiff received medical treatment in both Connecticut and Massachusetts before filing a claim in Massachusetts, asserting that he was injured in the course of employment and seeking compensation for negligence and breach of contract. The defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers covered by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) are entitled to benefits for injuries sustained during employment, including the aggravation of pre-existing conditions. While many employers will attempt to avoid paying benefits by arguing that such harm is not work-related, they often face an uphill battle, as illustrated in a recent Massachusetts case involving a maritime worker with a rare neurological disorder explaining the reach of the LHWCA in covering work-induced aggravations and the evidentiary burden employers must meet to avoid liability. If you sustained injuries while working, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly.

History of the Case

It is reported that the claimant, employed by a shipbuilding company, suffered from paramyoclonus multiplex, a neurological condition. It is alleged that the condition was aggravated by physical and emotional stressors at the workplace, including alleged harassment by co-workers. The claimant filed for compensation under the LHWCA, seeking total disability benefits on the grounds that his work environment caused his condition to worsen.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) provides important federal protections for maritime workers, but eligibility requires that both a status and situs test be satisfied. A recent Massachusetts case illustrates how failure to meet the situs requirement can bar recovery, even if the injured worker was performing maritime-related functions, and demonstrates the strict geographic limitations placed on federal maritime compensation claims. If you were injured while working, you may be owed benefits, and it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation as soon as possible.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the claimant, employed by a shipbuilding company, suffered an injury while working at a pipe fabrication facility located approximately four miles inland from the main shipyard. It is alleged that the claimant’s work included manufacturing components used in shipbuilding and that the employer contended the facility supported maritime operations.

It is further reported that the fabrication site was not located adjacent to navigable waters but rather was separated by residential and commercial properties. A brook located near the facility was alleged to be non-navigable. The claimant applied for benefits under the LHWCA, asserting that the site qualified as an “adjoining area” under the statute.An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that the location failed the situs test and denied benefits. The Benefits Review Board upheld this finding. The claimant sought further review of the ruling.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Massachusetts workers’ compensation laws are designed to provide benefits to employees who suffer work-related injuries. However, emotional injuries present unique legal challenges, particularly when they arise from personnel actions such as disciplinary proceedings. A recent Massachusetts workers’ compensation case examined whether an employee who developed an emotional disability following a workplace investigation was entitled to benefits. If you are dealing with a workers’ compensation dispute, it is wise to consult with an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible to ensure your rights are protected.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the claimant, a correctional officer, suffered an emotional injury following an investigatory interview regarding allegations of misconduct. The employer conducted the interview to determine whether the claimant had improperly reported income, which affected his back-pay calculation upon reinstatement. The claimant experienced severe emotional distress following the interview, resulting in his inability to return to work.

It is reported that the claimant applied for total or partial incapacity benefits under Massachusetts workers’ compensation law, asserting that the emotional distress suffered as a result of the workplace investigation rendered him unable to work. The Department of Industrial Accidents initially denied his claim, finding that the investigation constituted a bona fide personnel action, which under Massachusetts law precludes benefits for emotional injuries arising from legitimate employer actions. However, the Industrial Accident Reviewing Board reversed this decision, determining that the interview did not constitute a personnel action and thus did not bar the claimant’s right to benefits. The claimant appealed. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers engaged in maritime-related activities are entitled to specific protections under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). However, determining eligibility for benefits under this Act can be complex, especially for employees whose duties include both clerical and operational tasks. A recent Massachusetts decision provides important guidance on what constitutes maritime employment for the purpose of compensation eligibility. If you are navigating a workers’ compensation claim involving maritime employment, it is in your best interest to consult an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the claimant, a book clerk employed at a port terminal, suffered a back injury after a fall in an employee parking lot adjacent to navigable waters. The claimant’s job responsibilities included processing ship manifests, recording cargo movements, and identifying goods being loaded and unloaded. While most of the claimant’s duties took place in an office setting, he was required to inspect cargo at the container yard and, on occasion, board vessels to resolve manifest discrepancies.

It is alleged that after the injury, the claimant applied for benefits under the LHWCA. However, the Benefits Review Board denied the claim, reasoning that the claimant’s clerical duties did not constitute “maritime employment” as defined by the Act. Reportedly, the Board concluded that the claimant’s work was primarily administrative rather than directly involved in loading and unloading vessels. The claimant appealed the decision, arguing that his job required active participation in maritime operations. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers’ compensation insurance disputes can present complex legal challenges, particularly when multiple insurers may be responsible for coverage. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention in such cases. If you are involved in a workers’ compensation insurance dispute, consulting an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney is essential to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and maximizing your chances of a favorable outcome.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a workers’ compensation insurer, provided coverage for a general contractor and paid claims for an injured employee of a subcontractor. After making these payments, the plaintiff discovered that the subcontractor’s insurer had potentially failed to provide proper notice of policy cancellation. The plaintiff then sought to recover the amounts paid by filing a declaratory judgment action in Superior Court against the subcontractor’s insurer.

It is reported that the subcontractor’s insurer contended that the plaintiff’s claims were barred due to the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Department of Industrial Accidents initially ruled that the subcontractor’s insurer was not responsible for payments, and the plaintiff had not pursued an administrative appeal of that determination. It is reported that the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the subcontractor’s insurer, holding that the plaintiff should have exhausted available administrative procedures before filing in Superior Court. The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

In Massachusetts, the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) often bar employees from bringing negligence claims against their employers for workplace injuries. However, when questions arise regarding whether an entity qualifies as an employer under the WCA, courts must determine liability based on statutory definitions and case law. A recent Massachusetts Superior Court decision examined whether a temporary worker could sue a host company for injuries sustained on the job. If you are dealing with a workplace injury and have questions about employer liability, consulting an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney is essential.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a temporary worker assigned by a staffing agency, suffered a serious thumb injury while operating a riveting machine at the defendant’s manufacturing facility. The plaintiff had been working at the facility for several years through different staffing agencies, with her most recent placement facilitated by an agency that provided temporary laborers to the defendant under an oral agreement.

It is reported that the defendant provided training and supervision to the plaintiff and directed her job responsibilities while she worked at the facility. However, the staffing agency retained the right to terminate or reassign the plaintiff without requiring approval from the defendant. The staffing agency also provided workers’ compensation insurance for its temporary workers, including the plaintiff, and paid insurance premiums as part of its service fees to the defendant. Following her injury, the plaintiff applied for and received workers’ compensation benefits under the staffing agency’s insurance policy.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) provides compensation for maritime and harbor workers who suffer work-related injuries. In part, the LHWCA provides permanent disability benefits for employees who can no longer work because of their injuries. Employers may dispute the permanence of an employee’s injuries, but as discussed in a recent case, such positions can be challenging to prove. If you are involved in a workers’ compensation dispute, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the claimant, an ironworker employed by a steel erection company, sustained a serious back injury while performing job duties that required heavy lifting. Allegedly, following the injury, the claimant attempted to return to work in various capacities, including part-time clerical work and a brief stint as a security guard, but continued to experience disabling pain. Reportedly, the employer’s insurance carrier disputed the severity of the claimant’s disability, arguing that he was capable of performing other types of work.

Continue reading →