Articles Posted in Wrongful Death

Massachusetts workers who obtain compensation for permanent injuries often rely on those awards as a critical source of financial stability. A recent opinion from a Massachusetts court clarifies whether insurers may reduce those awards to recover attorney’s fees, a question that directly impacts the amount injured employees ultimately receive. The dispute centered on the interpretation of statutory provisions governing workers’ compensation, and the court’s ruling reinforces important protections for injured workers. If you have questions about how workers’ compensation benefits may be calculated or reduced, you should speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your rights.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the employee sustained injuries to his knee, shoulder, and head after slipping and falling during the course of his employment, after which he began receiving benefits for total incapacity under Massachusetts workers’ compensation law.

It is reported that the employee later filed claims seeking additional medical benefits and compensation for specific permanent injuries. An administrative judge initially denied the claim for specific compensation, prompting the employee to appeal and proceed toward a formal hearing. Continue reading →

Workplace fatalities occurring on or near navigable waters often raise complex questions about which legal remedies are available to surviving family members. In maritime settings, those questions frequently intersect with workers’ compensation statutes and federal maritime law, creating uncertainty about whether negligence claims may proceed alongside statutory benefit schemes. A recent decision directly addressed this issue, clarifying the scope of wrongful death remedies under general maritime law and how they coexist with maritime workers’ compensation frameworks. If you have questions about work-related injuries or fatalities in maritime settings, you should consider speaking with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to better understand your legal options.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the decedent was employed by a subcontractor performing sandblasting work aboard a vessel docked in navigable waters of the United States. While carrying out assigned duties, the decedent sustained serious injuries aboard the vessel and died the following day as a result of those injuries.

It is alleged that the work was performed under a layered subcontracting arrangement involving multiple entities, including the defendant shipbuilding company. The plaintiff, acting as the personal representative of the estate, asserted that the fatal injuries were caused by negligent conduct attributable to the defendant and another subcontractor involved in the work. Continue reading →

Workers’ compensation statutes do more than provide wage replacement and medical benefits. In certain circumstances, they also protect an injured employee’s right to be rehired when suitable work becomes available. Disputes often arise when an employer resists rehiring a former employee after a compensable injury, particularly where prior litigation or labor agreements complicate the employment relationship. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court highlights how courts enforce the workers’ compensation hiring preference statute and the broad equitable powers available to ensure compliance. If you are seeking reemployment after a work-related injury in Massachusetts, you should consider consulting with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand how these protections apply.

Case History

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant community college for approximately two decades in campus security and police roles, eventually attaining a supervisory position. After filing internal and administrative complaints alleging workplace misconduct, the plaintiff experienced a stress-related medical event and took medical leave from employment.

It is alleged that, when the plaintiff attempted to return to work, the defendant terminated employment on the grounds that adequate medical documentation had not been provided. An arbitrator later upheld the termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Several years later, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff on separate employment discrimination claims arising from the earlier events. Continue reading →

When an injured worker seeks insurance benefits after a serious accident, the expectation is that coverage will provide timely and adequate support for medical care and recovery. Unfortunately, disputes over insurance obligations can create additional hardship for workers already facing devastating injuries. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights how courts review claims of unfair settlement practices and bad faith under Massachusetts law when an insurer delays or denies benefits. If you were hurt at work, it is important to understand your options, and you should speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered severe injuries in March 2022 while working as an independent contractor for a food delivery service. The injuries included head trauma, facial disfigurement, spinal damage, and hand injuries, among others. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was covered under an occupational accident policy issued by the defendant insurance company and administered by its third-party claims handler. The policy was intended to provide medical and dental expense benefits of up to $1,000,000 for work-related accidents.

It is further reported that shortly after the accident, the plaintiff attempted to secure treatment for his injuries through the policy but encountered repeated obstacles. The insurer’s adjuster failed to provide a recommended provider list for nearly two months, leaving the plaintiff to attempt to schedule appointments on his own. In some cases, the adjuster suggested the plaintiff pay out of pocket and later seek reimbursement, even though his injuries left him financially vulnerable. When the plaintiff eventually scheduled a specialist appointment, it was canceled due to the adjuster’s inaction, causing additional delays in critical treatment. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, people hurt while working will typically seek workers’ compensation benefits. While employees that sustain work-related injuries can generally recover such benefits, different rules apply for land-based and water-based employees. Thus, an employee cannot recover benefits under both sets of rules, as explained in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt at work, it is in your best interest to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about what steps you can take to protect your interests.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff worked for a shoreside employer in Maine. The employer owned and used a fleet of vessels for marine transportation and construction. The plaintiff suffered an injury on the job and subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The claim was settled with the understanding that the worker was considered a land-based employee rather than a maritime employee, although this issue was never litigated.

Allegedly, the plaintiff then filed a complaint against the employer, seeking compensation for injuries under the Jones Act and general maritime law for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. Alternatively, the worker sought compensation under a section of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which allows certain land-based maritime workers to bring negligence actions against their employer in its capacity as the vessel owner. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers Compensation Act (the Act) provides that employees injured at work can recoup workers’ compensation benefits, but are barred from pursuing tort claims against their employers for workplace harm. As such, whether a party is able to pursue negligence claims against the entity they work for depends on whether they are an independent contractor or employee, as shown in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you sustained injuries at work, it is wise to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney regarding your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, was injured while working on a roofing project for the defendant, a subcontractor. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting a negligence claim. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that the plaintiff could not establish independent contractor status, which would allow him to bring a negligence action without being barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity. The plaintiff appealed.

Independent Contractor Versus Employee in Workers’ Compensation Cases

On appeal, the court’s review of the evidence indicates that there were conflicting allegations regarding the plaintiff’s status as an independent contractor or an employee, and therefore, the entry of summary judgment was not appropriate. Continue reading →

There are many recreational activities that present a risk of harm, and therefore, many companies that allow people to engage in such activities require participants to sign a waiver. While Massachusetts has routinely ruled that a waiver of the right to sue precludes an individual from pursuing claims for harm until recently, it was unclear whether a waiver also precludes the person’s heirs from pursuing claims, in the event the person dies. Recently, however, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that a waiver signed by a person who died while scuba diving was enforceable against the person’s beneficiaries. If you lost a loved one due to someone else’s negligence, you should speak with a trusted Massachusetts wrongful death attorney regarding your potential claims.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s decedent drowned while using a dry suit and diving equipment manufactured by the defendant company, during a promotional diving event sponsored by the defendant company. Prior to the event, the decedent signed a release from liability and an equipment rental agreement, which also contained a release of the right to sue the defendant company for death or injuries resulting from the use of the equipment. The plaintiff subsequently filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant company and a dive instructor working during the diving event, on behalf of the decedent’s estate.

Reportedly, the defendant company settled with the plaintiff, after which the defendant instructor filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the release agreements signed by the plaintiff’s decedent precluded the plaintiff’s claims. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the right of the decedent’s beneficiaries to pursue a wrongful death claim was an independent right that could not be waived.

Continue reading →