Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, employers have an obligation to pay workers’ compensation benefits to employees who sustain injuries while working. Only work-related injuries are compensable, though, and if an employer can establish that outside factors caused an employee’s harm, they can avoid paying benefits. As shown in a recent Massachusetts ruling, though, the employer must offer substantial and compelling evidence to prevail. If you were hurt while working, it is sensible to talk to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney regarding what benefits you may be owed.

History of the Case

It is reported that the claimant asserted suffering from intense lower back pain radiating down his left leg, rendering him totally and permanently disabled. He alleged he became disabled while working for the employer, a ship manufacturing facility, and filed a workers’ compensation claim. The employer contested the claim, arguing that the claimant’s disability was not work-related.

Allegedly, after a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially denied the claimant’s claim, finding that the employer had rebutted the statutory presumption of work-relatedness. However, on appeal, the Benefits Review Board vacated the ALJ’s decision, holding that the employer’s evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption. The case was remanded, and the ALJ subsequently awarded the claimant disability benefits. The employer appealed again, challenging the Board’s decision. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act provides that employees who are hurt while working can recover medical benefits and wage loss benefits for losses related to their harm. In some instances, other benefits may be available as well. For example, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts ruling, in some instances, assault pay could be recoverable in some cases. If you were hurt while working, it is advisable to talk to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney regarding what benefits you may be owed.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a court officer, filed a complaint in alleging debilitating injuries sustained on multiple occasions dating back to 1998 while on the job. In count one, Howard sought “assault pay” to compensate for the difference between his workers’ compensation payments and his salary. In count two, he sought additional damages and attorney’s fees under the Wage Act, due to the Commonwealth’s failure to provide assault pay. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, leading to the plaintiff’s appeal.

Assault Pay for Work-Related Harm

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling in part and reversed it in part. As to the first count, the court noted that the trial court dismissed it on statute of limitations grounds, which the defendant later admitted was an error. The defendant, however, argued for the dismissal on the alternative ground that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Specifically, the defendant contended that the injuries the plaintiff suffered, for which he was eligible for workers’ compensation, did not fall under the assault pay statute’s coverage. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act dictates that people who suffer work-related injuries can recover benefits for their medical expenses and lost wages from their employer. Further, people who suffer the loss of a loved one due to work-related harm can often recover benefits as well. If a party’s workers’ compensation claim is denied, they may be able to pursue civil claims for damages, but only if they comply with the procedural requirements, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts case. If you lost a loved one in a work accident, you should speak to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney about your possible claims.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent passed away after he suffered an injury when the forklift truck he was operating was overturned on the defendant employer’s premises. The plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits, but their claim was denied. The plaintiff then filed a civil complaint against the defendant, seeking punitive damages for gross negligence, wrongful death, and conscious pain and suffering of the decedent.

Allegedly, certain facts were undisputed, including that the decedent was employed by the defendant at the time of the accident, he did not reserve his rights under G.L. c. 152, § 24, and the accident occurred while he was performing his job duties. The identity of the defendant’s insurer was not disputed either. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, people hurt while working can often recover benefits for their harm pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. However, the benefits recoverable are limited. The Act dictates that benefits will be discontinued for people over the age of 65 in certain circumstances, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts case. If you suffered harm in the workplace, it would benefit you to contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to discuss your options.

Case Setting

It is reported that the claimant sustained a shoulder injury that required surgery while working as a custodian. The claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim and received benefits. When the claimant turned sixty-five, however, an administrative judge terminated his benefits.

Allegedly, the judge relied on § 35E in terminating the claimant’s benefits, noting it denies total or partial incapacity benefits to employees over the age of sixty-five who have been out of the labor market for at least two years and are eligible for social security benefits or employer-paid pensions unless they can demonstrate they would have remained active in the labor market. The claimant sought review, but the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents affirmed the administrative judge’s ruling. The claimant then appealed. Continue reading →

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, people injured while working can often recover benefits for their lost wages. Further, people who suffer permanent harm may be granted permanent disability benefits. In a recent Massachusetts dispute over workers’ compensation benefits, the court discussed what evidence is needed to establish a permanent and total disability. If you were hurt while working, you may be able to recover benefits, and you should confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly.

History of the Case

It is reported that the claimant sustained a severe right elbow injury that ultimately led to him needing to use a prosthesis. An administrative law judge ruled the claimant was totally and permanently disabled, and the benefits review board affirmed the decision. The ALJ based its decision on the claimant’s testimony regarding the frequent slippage of the prosthesis, leading to sharp pain, which allegedly rendered him unemployable. However, the insurer contended that the claimant could still secure employment despite occasional discomfort from the prosthesis. Moreover, the claimant, despite his injury, pursued education and passed all his courses, indicating a level of functionality and adaptability.

Allegedly, during the trial, the claimant’s attending physician’s reports, along with those of another doctor chosen by the claimant, were submitted as exhibits. These reports provided insight into the claimant’s medical condition and the impact of the injury on his daily life. The ALJ’s decision heavily relied on the claimant’s testimony and medical reports, ultimately ruling in favor of total disability. The insurer disputed the ALJ’s determination that the claimant was totally and permanently disabled due to the injury. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts legislature took measures to protect employees by passing the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). Under the Act, employers typically have to pay benefits to employees who sustain injuries while they are working. It is not uncommon, though, for employers or their insurers to attempt to avoid paying such benefits by arguing that the harm in question was not work-related. If the employer or insurer denies an employee benefits, the employee can employ the appeals process, but they must comply with the procedural requirements, otherwise their appeal may be denied, as shown in a recent Massachusetts opinion. If you were hurt while working, it is prudent to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible to determine your options.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff, representing himself, previously filed an unsuccessful claim with the Department of Industrial Accidents (D.I.A.) to reinstate discontinued workers’ compensation benefits. The benefits were terminated after the defendant, the plaintiff’s employer’s insurer,  obtained judicial approval to discontinue them. The plaintiff then filed the subject civil action in seeking to reclaim his discontinued workers’ compensation payments, bypassing the D.I.A. despite prior adverse rulings from both the D.I.A. and the Appeals Court on the same matter. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata; the defendant further argued for dismissal on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims.

Jurisdiction Over Workers’ Compensation Claims

The court reviewed the case based on undisputed facts presented by the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s submissions. It ultimately agreed with the defendant’s arguments, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim. Continue reading →

People hurt while working can typically recover workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). Typically, the process of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits involves the injured party filing a claim and the employer’s representative conducting an investigation, the results of which are documented in a claim file. While workers’ compensation claims files may contain sensitive information, it is unlikely that they are protected from disclosure via any privilege, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you were injured on the job, it is in your best interest to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to evaluate what benefits you may be able to recover.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is alleged the plaintiff suffered injuries while working for the defendant. He then filed a workers’ compensation claim, after which he received benefits. He then filed a product liability suit against the defendant, arguing that the defendant’s defective product caused his harm. The defendant then sought a motion to compel the plaintiff to provide its workers’ compensation file, which had been handed over to the plaintiff’s counsel by the workers’ compensation carrier for the plaintiff’s employer. The defendant argued that certain information obtained by an investigation agency on behalf of the workers’ compensation carrier was crucial to the case.

It is reported that the plaintiff’s counsel had already disclosed certain portions of the file, but nine categories of information were contested. Seven of these categories comprised data acquired by the investigation agency during their investigation on behalf of the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier. The plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that no attorney-client privilege existed between them and the carrier at the time of the investigation. Continue reading →

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), employers must provide injured employees with workers’ compensation benefits. In exchange for such benefits, employees are barred from pursuing civil claims for damages arising out of workplace harm against their employers. As demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts case, though, the preclusion only applies to claims against direct employers, regardless of whether a party voluntarily pays an injured employee benefits. If you were hurt while working, it is advisable to meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to determine your options.

Case History

It is alleged that the plaintiff suffered a severe work-related injury while working for a masonry subcontractor at a construction. The plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits from the masonry subcontractor, which was uninsured, and subsequently received compensation from the defendant, the general contractor.

It is reported, however, that the plaintiff also initiated a lawsuit against the defendant, as well as the owner of the construction site, seeking compensation for his injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff, having accepted workers’ compensation benefits, was precluded from pursuing a common law negligence claim against the defendant. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) protects employees who suffer injuries at work, in that it allows them to recover both medical and wage loss benefits. In exchange for such protections, though, the Act provides that it is the sole remedy for work-related harm. In other words, people hurt due to workplace conditions generally cannot pursue civil claims for damages against their employers. The exclusivity provisions of the Act not only preclude claims arising out of bodily harm but also prohibit employees from pursuing emotional distress claims, as demonstrated in a recent ruling issued in a Massachusetts case. If you sustained harm in the workplace, you may be able to recover benefits from your employer, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your rights.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who was a Black Muslim immigrant, worked for the defendant transportation authority since 1999. The plaintiff alleges that he faced discrimination, retaliation, and hazardous working conditions while employed by the defendant. He filed charges with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and obtained a right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before bringing an action in state court.

It is reported that the defendant moved to dismiss all counts of the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing in part, that the plaintiff’s emotional distress claim was pre-empted by the Act. Continue reading →

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), employees hurt at work can often recover benefits from their employers. In most instances, such benefits are paid by insurance companies via workers’ compensation policies. If more than one policy covers an employer, though, the company paying benefits has a right to seek contribution from other insurers covering the loss, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts case.  If you suffered injuries or contracted an illness due to workplace conditions, you might be owed benefits, and you should speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your potential claims.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that an employee suffered a severe injury during a business trip covered by two workers’ compensation policies from different insurers. He subsequently sought workers’ compensation benefits from his employer. The employer only notified the first insurance company of the claim. After initially covering the costs, the first insurance company later sought contribution from the second insurance company. The second insurance company refused the tender, leading the first insurance company to file an action for equitable contribution.

Reportedly, the second insurance company moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion. The first insurance company appealed, and the trial court posed a certified question regarding workers’ compensation insurance policies to the appellate court. Specifically, the court questioned whether an insured party can choose which insurer defends and indemnifies a claim by intentionally tendering the defense to one insurer and not the other, thus precluding the insurer to which no tender was made from obtaining contribution. Continue reading →