Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
Construction sites present inherent risks, and when a worker is injured due to negligent construction, the resulting litigation often extends beyond initial questions of liability. When damages are awarded, disputes may arise over workers’ compensation liens, the allocation of jury awards, and whether a judgment has been fully satisfied. A recent Massachusetts decision provides guidance on these post-verdict issues, particularly regarding third-party reimbursement under the Workers’ Compensation Act. If you suffered a workplace injury, you should speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can help clarify your rights.
Case Setting
Allegedly, the plaintiff was working as an electrician on a construction project at a property owned and operated by multiple entities when a staircase collapsed beneath him. The stairs had been installed by a subcontractor, and the project’s workers’ compensation insurer paid medical expenses and lost wages while the plaintiff recovered. The plaintiff asserted that he suffered significant injuries, required several surgeries, and remained disabled and unable to work for approximately two years.
It is alleged that the plaintiff and his family members filed suit against the defendants seeking damages for pain and suffering, lost wages, medical expenses, and loss of consortium. Prior to trial, the subcontractor admitted that it negligently installed the staircase and that this negligence caused the collapse. A jury trial was held on damages only. The plaintiff requested a special verdict form that would require the jury to itemize the damages; however, the trial judge denied the request, expressing concern that such a breakdown could confuse jurors, given the number of damage categories involved. The verdict form, therefore, asked the jury to determine a single figure for the plaintiff’s damages.
Reportedly, the jury awarded the plaintiff more than $1.7 million. The defendants promptly paid the full amount, the plaintiff’s counsel deposited the checks, and a portion of the funds was distributed. The plaintiff then filed a motion under G. L. c. 152, § 15, requesting judicial allocation of the damages award to address the insurer’s lien. He proposed three possible scenarios, each assigning varying amounts of the verdict to pain and suffering. The insurer objected and urged the court to adopt an alternative allocation. The trial judge ultimately allocated $630,000 to pain and suffering and $120,000 to medical expenses and lost compensation. The defendants then moved for acknowledgment that the judgment had been satisfied. The trial judge allowed the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.
Massachusetts Law Regarding Workers’ Compensation Liens
On appeal, the court first considered whether the plaintiff’s objections to the § 15 allocation were preserved. The court held that the plaintiff invited the very action he now challenged by requesting an allocation under § 15 and by offering specific scenarios for the judge to consider. Under the doctrine of invited error, a party who induces a judicial action cannot later argue that the resulting ruling was improper. Because the plaintiff urged the judge to allocate the damages, he was estopped from asserting that the allocation process or the resulting allocation was erroneous.
The court then reviewed the judge’s allocation under § 15. Massachusetts law grants workers’ compensation insurers a lien against third-party recoveries for amounts paid in medical and wage benefits. However, § 15 explicitly excludes damages for pain and suffering from the insurer’s reimbursement rights. A judge must therefore determine the fair allocation of a jury’s award between compensable losses and pain and suffering. The court explained that this determination is factual in nature and must be upheld unless clearly erroneous.
In the subject case, the record reflected that the insurer paid just over $115,000 in benefits. The judge evaluated all evidence regarding the plaintiff’s injuries, including medical bills, lost earnings, and the severity of his pain and suffering. Allocating $630,000 of the $750,000 award to pain and suffering fell within the range of the evidence presented and aligned with one of the plaintiff’s own proposed allocations. The court therefore found no error.
Finally, the court affirmed the order acknowledging satisfaction of judgment. The defendants had paid more than the judgment amount, the plaintiff accepted and deposited the checks, and funds were distributed. Under these circumstances, acknowledgment of satisfaction was appropriate and required.
Consult an Experienced Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney
If you were injured at work, it is essential to consult an experienced workers’ compensation attorney to protect your interests. James K. Meehan of the Law Office of James K. Meehan is a seasoned Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer who can help you take the steps necessary to recover any benefits you may be owed. You can reach Mr. Meehan at 508-822-6600 or via our online form to arrange a consultation.