Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

People who suffer injuries in workplace accidents can often recover benefits pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). While the Act typically prohibits them from pursuing civil actions against their employers for their injuries, they may be able to recover damages from third parties. Notably, employees have the right to seek workers’ compensation benefits and redress in tort actions against third parties regardless of their immigration status in this Country, as explained in a recent Massachusetts case. If you were hurt in an accident while working, it is in your best interest to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to determine your rights as soon as possible.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff suffered injuries when he fell from a ladder while working on the roof of a three-story residential building. Specifically, he suffered fractures to the skull, dissection of the vertebral artery, hematomas of the brain, and other harm. Due to the severity of his injuries, he was unable to work. He subsequently sought and received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer’s insurer.

It is reported that the plaintiff then filed tort claims against numerous defendants, alleging their negligence brought about his harm. During a deposition, the defense attorney asked the plaintiff about his immigration status. The plaintiff declined to answer, and the defendants then moved to compel him to submit to questioning about his immigration status. Continue reading →

Under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), employers have an obligation to provide workers’ compensation benefits to employees that suffer injuries while working. IN exchange for the right to recover such benefits, however, employees are precluded from filing civil claims seeking damages for personal injuries against their employers. The Massachusetts courts strictly construe the exclusivity provisions of the Act and will dismiss any claims barred by the exclusivity provision, as illustrated in a recent Massachusetts opinion. If you were injured in a work-related activity, you could be owed benefits, and it would be advantageous for you to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was diagnosed with legionnaire’s disease in December 2014 because of exposure to contaminated water in the workplace following an industrial accident in which a compressor exploded, distributing water vapor and dust into the air. His illness was promptly reported to the Massachusetts Department of Health and Public Safety (MDHPS), and he submitted a claim to the Department of Industrial Accidents.

The plaintiff alleged that his employer, the MDHPS, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) were required to conduct an investigation which meant, in part, that they had to collect and analyze water samples but failed to do so. As such, he asserted claims against them in a civil lawsuit, arguing that they failed to protect his safety and that of his coworkers and violated his civil rights. The defendant employer moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, arguing that they were barred by the Act. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) grants employees the right to seek benefits if they are hurt at work and protects them from retaliation for asserting that right. As such, employers that attempt to retaliate against employees for seeking workers’ compensation benefits may face civil consequences. Employees asserting retaliation claims must demonstrate that their employers took adverse action against them due to the fact that they sought workers’ compensation benefits and not for some other reason; if they cannot meet this burden, their claims could be dismissed, as shown in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you suffered injuries at work, it is important to understand your rights, and it is wise to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff worked for the defendant as a postal employee. He suffered harm in an accident that occurred in 2010 and filed a workers’ compensation claim, asserting that his injuries were work-related. He was terminated a few days after he filed his claim, and his claim was ultimately denied. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, arguing, among other things, that he was terminated in retaliation for seeking workers’ compensation benefits. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss his lawsuit on the grounds that he failed to set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate cause for relief. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff appealed.

Proving a Workers’ Compensation Retaliation Claim

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. In doing so, the court explained that the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant refused to process his workers’ compensation papers in retaliation for exercising a protected right lacked merit for two reasons. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) affords employees injured in the course and scope of their work the right to recover workers’ compensation benefits. It is not uncommon for employers to deny claims for workers’ compensation benefits, however. Fortunately, the law permits employees whose workers’ compensation claims have been denied to seek a review of the decision via an appellate process. If they pursue an appeal without justification, however, their actions may have negative consequences, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts opinion. If you were hurt at work, you could be owed workers’ compensation benefits, and it is advisable to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to determine your potential claims.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that a fee dispute arose between attorneys who represented the employee in connection with a workers’ compensation claim before the Department of Industrial Accidents. The employee and the insurer entered into a lump sum settlement agreement in which the insurer agreed to pay the employee $50,000; approximately $16,000 of the award was set aside for costs and attorney’s fees.

It is reported that the two attorneys that represented the employee could not resolve how the attorney’s fees should be divided between them and filed a third-party claim with an administrative judge. The first attorney moved for recusal of the judge, claiming bias. The judge denied the motion and ordered the insurer to release the funds to the attorneys. The first attorney appealed, again claiming bias. The review board affirmed the decision and held that the appeal lacked reasonable grounds and that there was no justification for the attorney’s conduct. It subsequently ordered the first attorney to pay the second attorney the cost of the appellate proceeding. The first attorney once again appealed. Continue reading →

It is well-established that the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) supplants an employee’s right to pursue civil claims against their employer for harm that arises in the workplace with the right to recover workers’ compensation benefits for said harm. It is not always clear, however, what claims the exclusivity provision of the Act actually prohibits. Recently, a Massachusetts court analyzed the scope of the provision in a case in which it ultimately found that the Act barred the plaintiff’s claims. If you suffered a physical or mental injury because of conditions you encountered in the workplace, it is prudent to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to discuss what steps you should take to protect your interests.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant, her employer, seeking damages for harm caused by the conditions of her employment, which she alleged were unlawful. She asserted six causes of action against the defendant, including two emotional distress claims. The defendant moved for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Conduct that Occurs Within the Scope of the Employment

In its motion to dismiss, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s emotional distress claims were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act. In response, the plaintiff countered that the conduct that she complained of in her complaint did not fall within the scope of employment, and as such, the exclusivity provision of the Act did not preclude her claims. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted that intentional torts that fail to further the interests of an employer do not fall within the scope of employment, and directing an employee to engage in illegal activity certainly cannot further an employer’s interests. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) prohibits people from pursuing civil claims against their employer for harm suffered in the workplace that is compensable under the terms of the Act. Notably, the Act not only bars injured employees from seeking claims against their employers but also from seeking compensation for harm caused by their co-workers. The scope of the exclusivity provision of the Act was the focus of an opinion recently issued by a Massachusetts court in which it ultimately found that the Act barred the plaintiff’s claims. If you were hurt in the workplace due to the acts of a co-worker, you should meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to assess what benefits you may be owed.

Factual Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who is a black woman in her late fifties, worked as a detective for a city police department. In 2010, she was transferred to a human trafficking unit, and the defendant became her immediate supervisor. The defendant repeatedly engaged in acts that were detrimental to the plaintiff’s career and reported that she did not like her and did not want to work with her. In 2017, the plaintiff filed a formal harassment and hostile work environment claim against the defendant in the internal affairs division of her department. The division did not adequately address her claims, which prompted her to file a civil lawsuit against the defendant, asserting discrimination and retaliation claims, and claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.

Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Tortious Acts

In her motion to dismiss, the defendant argued, among other things, that the exclusivity provision of the Act precluded the plaintiff from pursuing intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against her. The court found the defendant’s arguments persuasive and granted her motion to dismiss with regard to the plaintiff’s emotional distress claims. Continue reading →

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), employees that suffer harm due to workplace conditions can seek workers’ compensation benefits from their employers. Generally, in exchange for the right to recover such benefits, they are barred from pursuing civil claims against their employers for such harm. They are not prohibited from asserting negligence claims against third parties that contributed to or caused their workplace injuries, however, as reiterated in a ruling recently issued by a Massachusetts court. If you were hurt while working, you could be able to recover workers’ compensation benefits and other damages, and it is in your best interest to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff worked for a company as a software engineer. The company was purchased by the defendant corporation, which continued to operate the company under its original name. The plaintiff was asked to sign a non-compete agreement when the defendant acquired the company but was not offered anything in exchange. Shortly before the defendant bought the company, the plaintiff was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome. He informed his supervisor and the company human resources representative of his diagnosis.

It is reported that approximately a year later, the plaintiff’s supervisor asked him to work on a project that would allow the company to use third-party software; the plaintiff later learned that the goal of the project was to create competing software. The defendant later terminated the plaintiff for violating company policy and exposing the defendant to potential criminal liability. The plaintiff subsequently filed civil claims against the defendant. He then moved to amend his complaint to include claims for, among other things, negligent infliction of emotional distress. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act), protects Massachusetts employees in that it allows them to recover workers’ compensation benefits if they were injured while working. The right to recover such benefits impacts other claims, though. For example, it may affect an employee’s ability to pursue certain employment claims, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you were hurt at work, your employer could owe you benefits, and it is wise to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a former flight attendant, and a former co-worker bought a lawsuit against the defendant, their former employer, arguing that the defendant negligently or fraudulently misrepresented what travel benefits they would retain after they retired. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims arguing, in part, that her settlement in a workers’ compensation claim barred her from seeking any employment-related benefits after the date of settlement.

The Relationship Between Workers’ Compensation and Employee Benefits Claims

After reviewing the evidence of the case, the court found in favor of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. The court explained that the Act stipulates that when an employee accepts a settlement in a workers’ compensation claim, it creates a presumption that they are no longer physically capable of resuming work for the employer in the place where the alleged injury happened for a period of one month for each $1,500 that is included in the settlement for future weekly wages. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) provides that people hurt at work have the right to seek benefits from their employer. Notably, this right extends not only to people hurt in accidents but also to those that develop illnesses or injuries due to exposure to harmful substances. Regardless of the type of injury a claimant suffers from, though, they must establish that it was caused by workplace conditions or activities in order to recover workers’ compensation benefits, as demonstrated in an opinion recently issued by a Massachusetts court. If you contracted an illness due to exposure to unsafe substances at work, you should consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to discuss whether you may be able to recover benefits.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, which was self-insured. In support of his claim, the plaintiff alleged that he sustained a work-related lung injury while performing his duties as an HVAC technician for the employer. The employer contested liability, arguing that the employee did not establish that his injury was caused by work conditions.

It is reported that an administrative judge of the Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA) awarded the plaintiff some benefits but not others, and both parties appealed. Following a hearing during which doctors and an independent medical examiner testified, the judge issued a decision in favor of the plaintiff. The employer appealed, and on appeal, the reviewing board of the DIA reversed the administrative judge’s ruling, finding that the employee failed to show his lung injury was causally related to his work. The plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

People injured at work have the right to pursue workers’ compensation benefits. In exchange for that right, however, the exclusivity provision of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) bars them from seeking other damages for their injuries from their employers. In some cases, though, it is unclear whether a person is an employee and whether the Act applies, as shown in a recent ruling issued by a Massachusetts court. If you were harmed while working, it is in your best interest to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer regarding what benefits you may be owed.

Factual Background of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent was a graduate student at the defendant university. He sought counseling after he expressed concerns that he was failing his classes and was referred to receive mental health treatment. During his intake meeting, he denied that he had suicidal ideation and stated he did not know why he was referred there. He had several subsequent visits, however, and later admitted a history of depression and suicidal thoughts. Tragically, he died by suicide approximately two years after he began to seek help.

It is reported that the plaintiff, the administrator of the decedent’s estate, instituted a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging negligence and wrongful death claims. The defendant moved for dismissal via summary judgment, arguing that the decedent was an employee and, therefore, the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Act. The plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asking the court to rule as a matter of law that the decedent was not the defendant’s employee. The trial court denied both motions, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →