Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
Arriving early for work does not automatically place an employee outside Massachusetts workers’ compensation law, even when the employee chooses an unsafe entrance. A recent Reviewing Board decision examined whether a kitchen worker’s fall while climbing a locked fence arose out of employment and whether serious and willful misconduct could bar benefits. Fault generally does not control the threshold question of work connection. If an insurer claims that your injury happened outside the course of employment, consult a skilled Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly about your rights.
The Early Arrival, Serious Injury, and Denial of the Claim
Reportedly, the employer operated a brewery and beer hall with several entrances. The kitchen door generally opened at 8:00 a.m., while workers with key cards could enter earlier. The employee prepared food, cleaned, and accepted deliveries. Although his shift started at 9:00 a.m. and a supervisor had told him not to arrive early, he sometimes began near 8:00 a.m. by using an open beer-garden gate. The employer paid all time recorded after he clocked in.
It is alleged that the employee arrived before 7:00 a.m. on September 16, 2022, found the gate locked, and tried to climb the fence. He fell about eight feet and fractured his right hip. The employee claimed Section 34 temporary total incapacity benefits and Sections 13 and 30 medical benefits. An administrative judge denied the claim at conference, and the employee appealed to a de novo hearing. The judge again denied the claim, finding that the climb arose from the employee’s desire to clock in two hours early rather than from his employment. The judge consequently did not decide the insurer’s Section 27 serious and willful misconduct defense. The employee appealed.
How the Reviewing Board Analyzed Course of Employment and Section 27
The Board applied Section 26 of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, which covers an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The standard asks whether the job’s nature, conditions, obligations, or incidents brought the employee into contact with the risk. Coverage may extend beyond scheduled hours when an employee pursues a benefit for the employer. An employee on the premises may also remain within the employment relationship for a reasonable period before work.
The employee argued that he came to work and was hurt while trying to reach his workplace through his customary access area. The insurer responded that climbing the fence was neither a job duty nor a reasonable incidental activity. The Board sided with the employee. The accident occurred on the employer’s premises, and the hearing judge found that the employee was there to work. Ordinary fault does not determine whether an injury arose out of and in the course of employment. It matters only if the insurer proves serious and willful misconduct under Section 27.
The Board reversed the finding that the injury fell outside the course of employment. It did not order benefits because the hearing judge had made no findings or rulings on Section 27. The governing statute requires a decision on each disputed issue supported by adequate subsidiary findings. The Board recommitted the case for the judge to decide whether the conduct met Section 27’s standard, leaving entitlement to benefits unresolved.
Challenge a Denied Claim with a Dedicated Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney
Disputes over work connection and alleged misconduct can determine whether an injured employee receives wage and medical benefits. If your employer or its insurer argues that the timing, location, or circumstances of your accident defeat your claim, contact the Law Office of James K. Meehan. James K. Meehan is a seasoned Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer serving clients throughout Massachusetts, including Bristol, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties. Call 508-822-6600 or use the firm’s online contact form to arrange a consultation and discuss a strategy for pursuing the benefits you deserve.