Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
When a worker is injured on the job, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act generally provides the exclusive remedy against the employer. Questions sometimes arise, however, when a staffing agency places a worker at a company’s site, raising issues of who qualifies as the employer and whether the host company is shielded from tort liability. This was illustrated in a recent Massachusetts decision where a temporary worker sought to pursue negligence claims against the company that had supervised his work. If you were hurt while working, it is important to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney regarding your rights.
Facts of the Case
Allegedly, the plaintiff was injured on November 24, 2018, while working as a temporary employee for the defendant on assignment from a staffing agency. The staffing agency was responsible for interviewing, hiring, assigning, and paying employees, while the defendant supervised the plaintiff’s day-to-day work, safeguarded the premises, and provided safety training. On March 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligence, gross negligence, and reckless conduct against the defendant, contending that the defendant’s failures caused his injuries.
It is reported that the defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act barred the plaintiff’s tort claims. The defendant argued it qualified as an “alternate employer” under the staffing agency’s workers’ compensation insurance policy. This endorsement, referencing an amendatory endorsement, provided that all clients of the staffing agency were considered alternate employers for workers’ compensation purposes, subject to certain conditions. The motion judge agreed, concluding that the staffing agreement between the defendant and the staffing agency met the definition of a written contract contemplated by the endorsement. Accordingly, the defendant was deemed an alternate employer and immune from tort liability.
Alternate Employers in the Context of Workers’ Compensation
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that because the defendant was not specifically named in the amendatory endorsement, it did not qualify as an insured person under the Workers’ Compensation Act and thus could not invoke immunity. The plaintiff also asserted that a valid waiver of claims was required for immunity, which he contended the defendant had not obtained. He further argued that the court erred in granting summary judgment without adequately considering these issues.
On appeal, the court applied a two-part test which requires that (1) the employer be an insured person liable for payment of workers’ compensation, and (2) the employer be the direct employer of the injured worker. The court noted that the defendant undisputedly supervised and controlled the plaintiff’s work, making it his direct employer and satisfying the second prong of the test.
As to the first prong, the court held that the staffing agreement explicitly required the agency to provide workers’ compensation insurance and benefits for assigned employees, and to add alternate employer endorsements to its policy. This contractual obligation was sufficient to qualify the defendant as an insured person for purposes of the Act.
The court emphasized that the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provisions are the cornerstone of the statutory scheme, designed to replace tort-based remedies with a uniform system for compensating injured workers. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the absence of his employer’s specific name in the endorsement defeated immunity, reasoning that the policy language broadly extended coverage to all staffing agency clients under written contracts. The court further explained that while a waiver of claims can serve as an alternative basis for immunity, such a waiver is not a prerequisite to immunity when the statutory requirements are otherwise met. Ultimately, because the defendant satisfied both prongs of the Lang test, the court held that it was immune from tort liability and affirmed the judgment.
Meet with an Experienced Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney
If you have questions about workplace injuries, workers’ compensation benefits, or potential claims against employers, you should meet with a lawyer. Attorney James K. Meehan of the Law Office of James K. Meehan is an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can aid you in seeking any benefits you may be owed. Contact us at 508-822-6600 or through our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.