Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
When an employee is injured at work, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act often provides the exclusive remedy for recovery, even when the injury occurs at a third-party job site through a staffing agency. For example, a recent Massachusetts case illustrates how temporary workers may be barred from filing separate personal injury lawsuits if the staffing arrangement includes the necessary insurance endorsements. If you’ve been injured on the job while working for a staffing agency, you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your legal rights and options.
Facts of the Case
It is reported that the plaintiff, a temporary worker assigned by a staffing agency, was placed at a plastic manufacturing facility in North Dighton, Massachusetts. The plaintiff, working as a packer, sustained a severe injury when her ponytail became entangled in a machine, resulting in significant scalp and hair loss. She was employed by a staffing agency, which provided workers to the manufacturing company. Following the incident, the plaintiff received benefits through the staffing agency’s workers’ compensation insurance.
It is alleged that the plaintiff then filed a personal injury lawsuit against the manufacturing company and its affiliates, asserting that they were liable for damages beyond what was provided under workers’ compensation. In response, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were immune from suit under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act because the plaintiff had already accepted compensation benefits through a valid insurance policy that covered them as alternate employers.
It is further reported that the parties had a written staffing agreement identifying one location as the official site for the staffing arrangement. However, the injury occurred at a different facility, which was not expressly mentioned in the staffing agreement’s exhibit. Nonetheless, the workers’ compensation insurance policy listed North Dighton as a covered site and included an alternate employer endorsement that did not restrict coverage to a specific site.
Alternate Employers in the Context of Workers’ Compensation
The court addressed whether the manufacturing company qualified as an alternate employer covered by the staffing agency’s insurance policy under Massachusetts law. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 152, § 23, when an employee accepts workers’ compensation benefits, that acceptance generally serves as a release of any common-law claims against the employer. To assert this immunity, an employer must be both the employee’s direct employer and insured under a valid workers’ compensation policy.
The plaintiff did not dispute that the manufacturing company was her direct employer on-site. Instead, she argued that the workers’ compensation policy did not apply to the North Dighton location because the staffing agreement only listed the Westborough site. However, the court found that the insurance policy itself covered North Dighton and that the alternate employer endorsement applied broadly, without location-specific limits. Moreover, the court noted that the endorsement section of the policy contained no geographical restriction and that the North Dighton facility was explicitly listed in the policy documents.
The court concluded that the defendants met both prongs of the test for employer immunity and were thus shielded from liability. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the staffing agency should be judicially estopped from relying on the contract due to earlier inconsistent positions. The court emphasized that judicial estoppel requires the earlier position to have been accepted by the court, which had not occurred in this case. The court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that they were immune from the plaintiff’s claims under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act.
Speak with a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney Today
Massachusetts workers who are injured while placed through staffing agencies face a unique set of legal challenges. As this case illustrates, workers’ compensation laws may bar personal injury claims even when the worker is placed at a facility not explicitly listed in a staffing contract. Attorney James K. Meehan of the Law Office of James K. Meehan is a skilled Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney, and if you’ve been hurt on the job and are unsure about your rights or the scope of employer immunity, he is here to help. Contact our office at 508-822-6600 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.