Published on: |

Injured public employees in Massachusetts may be eligible for both workers’ compensation benefits and public disability retirement pensions. However, the interaction between these systems is complex, and a favorable outcome in one does not guarantee success in the other. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court emphasizes that public employees must meet distinct and independent criteria to qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits, even after being deemed permanently disabled under the Workers’ Compensation Act. If you are a municipal or public employee navigating an injury claim, a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help you pursue all available benefits and avoid costly legal missteps.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a firefighter, sustained multiple job-related injuries over the course of his career, including several back injuries incurred during emergency responses and training exercises. He underwent surgeries and received extensive treatment, and eventually applied for and received workers’ compensation benefits based on a finding of permanent and total disability. A judge at the Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA) concluded that the plaintiff was unable to return to work and awarded benefits accordingly.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

When an employee contracts an infectious disease during a public health emergency, determining whether the harm is compensable under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act can be complicated. A recent decision by a Massachusetts court clarifies that contracting COVID-19 may constitute a compensable injury when the nature of the worker’s job exposes them to heightened risk, reaffirming protections for essential workers who performed critical duties during the pandemic despite elevated exposure to danger. If you are an employee who suffered illness or injury in the course of employment, it is essential to speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your rights.

Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff worked as a head lineman for a utility company, a position that involved physically demanding tasks such as installing and repairing overhead and underground electrical lines. The plaintiff’s role required close collaboration with fellow linemen and involved riding in trucks and working in proximity to others. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff’s job was designated as an “essential service,” and he was urged to continue working under the Governor-issued emergency orders.

It is alleged that while most businesses were shuttered under executive orders, the plaintiff continued to report for duty, working shoulder to shoulder with coworkers and remaining in confined spaces such as truck cabs. In February 2021, after a fellow lineman reported feeling unwell, the plaintiff and most members of his team tested positive for COVID-19. Although the plaintiff initially tested negative, he developed symptoms within days, ultimately contracting the virus and experiencing severe illness, including hospitalization, respiratory complications, and long-term disability. Continue reading →

Published on: |

When an employee suffers emotional distress or confronts conflict with a supervisor following a workplace injury, it may seem reasonable to pursue a tort claim against the employer or individual actors. However, Massachusetts law provides strong protections for employers and supervisors under both federal labor law and the Workers’ Compensation Act. A recent Massachusetts decision illustrates how these laws interact to preempt or bar common-law claims that may arise from workplace-related conduct. If you are facing employment-related issues after an injury, consulting a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney is essential to preserve your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff worked as a service technician for a telecommunications company in Worcester, Massachusetts. His job duties included installing and repairing telephone lines, and he was a member of a union whose employment terms were governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The CBA included a broad “Management Rights” clause that gave the employer authority over operational decisions, including supervision, workplace safety, and performance evaluations.

It is further reported that the plaintiff’s supervisor conducted monthly unannounced worksite visits as part of a safety compliance program mandated by the company. The plaintiff was involved in a work-related vehicle accident. One week later, the supervisor visited the plaintiff’s home without prior notice, leading to a tense confrontation with the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff later sued both the employer and the supervisor in Massachusetts state court, asserting claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass, and respondeat superior. The case was subsequently removed to federal court based on preemption by federal labor law. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Massachusetts employees who suffer workplace injuries may be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits, but that protection does not always extend to separate claims of handicap discrimination or retaliation under the state’s anti-discrimination law. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court illustrates how employees who are unable to perform essential job functions due to a workplace injury may not qualify for protection under the state’s handicap discrimination statute. If you were injured on the job or believe you were wrongfully terminated after filing for workers’ compensation, you should consult with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to explore your options.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed as a warehouse coordinator by a small Massachusetts manufacturing company. His role required constant lifting of items weighing up to 50 pounds. He fell from a ladder and suffered a serious left shoulder injury. Medical documentation soon after the accident indicated that the plaintiff could not engage in repetitive motion or lift more than five to ten pounds. His doctors eventually concluded that he required shoulder surgery, which was performed later that year.

It is further reported that the plaintiff was restricted from using his left arm for weeks after surgery and continued to experience significant pain. In April of the following year, his treating physician documented that the plaintiff required emergency treatment and suggested the injury might be permanent. By the middle of the year, the plaintiff accepted a settlement of $45,000 lump sum for workers’ compensation. The settlement was approved by the Department of Industrial Accidents and included compensation for future weekly benefits. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Under Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation Act, a lump sum settlement cannot be imposed on an employee who no longer consents to its terms. This was emphasized by a recent Massachusetts decision reaffirming that a valid settlement under Chapter 152 requires a true meeting of the minds. If you are navigating a workers’ compensation claim and have concerns about settlement pressure, it is important to speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to ensure your rights are protected.

Factual History and Procedural Background

It is reported that the employee sustained injuries to his lower back after being struck by a forklift during the course of his employment. Following the incident, the employee received temporary total incapacity benefits under G.L. c. 152, § 34. The employer’s workers’ compensation insurer later filed to reduce or terminate those benefits. After proceedings before the Department of Industrial Accidents, the insurer was ordered to continue paying benefits under § 35 for partial incapacity.

It is further reported that two years later, the parties negotiated a lump sum settlement. However, shortly after an initial administrative hearing, the employee allegedly had second thoughts about entering into the agreement. This change of heart was reportedly prompted by a recent MRI indicating that his back condition was worse than he had previously understood. The employee, through counsel, informed both the insurer and the administrative judge that he no longer wished to proceed with the lump sum agreement. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Determining who qualifies as an “employer” under Massachusetts workers’ compensation law can be pivotal in personal injury litigation. When workplace injuries occur, the exclusive remedy provision under the Workers’ Compensation Act typically bars employees from bringing tort claims against their employers. In a recent decision, a federal appellate court found that an airline could not be sued for negligence by a flight attendant injured on duty, as it was deemed her employer for workers’ compensation purposes. If you sustained a workplace injury and are considering your legal options, it is important to consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, a flight attendant, suffered serious back injuries while working on a commercial flight operated by a subsidiary of the defendant airline. The incident occurred during a sudden stop on the runway as the aircraft was taxiing at Boston’s Logan Airport. Although the plaintiff had applied for and was hired by the subsidiary company, she later sued the parent airline for negligence, alleging that it was a separate entity and thus subject to third-party liability under Massachusetts law.

It is further reported that the plaintiff began receiving workers’ compensation benefits shortly after the accident and eventually settled her claim through a lump sum payment. The compensation was paid by an insurance carrier that covered both the parent airline and its subsidiary. Despite the settlement, the plaintiff pursued a negligence action against the parent airline in Massachusetts state court, asserting that the airline was not her direct employer and, therefore, not protected by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Health care employees in Massachusetts who report misconduct may be entitled to whistleblower protections, but they are generally barred from pursuing tort claims arising from workplace incidents due to the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA). A recent Massachusetts case involving the termination of an emergency medical technician (EMT) demonstrates how this statutory exclusivity preempts even claims of emotional harm tied to workplace disputes. If you were hurt while working, you may be able to recover benefits for your harm, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, an EMT employed by a licensed ambulance company, responded to a call involving a patient with altered mental status. The EMT transported the patient alongside a partner, who allegedly failed to attend to the patient and was seen using a cell phone during the transport. Upon arrival at the hospital, the EMT discovered a fresh hemorrhagic wound on the patient’s arm, for which no explanation was provided by the partner.

Allegedly believing the injury to be the result of misconduct, the EMT photographed the wound using a personal cell phone and reported the incident to a field supervisor, who initially commended the EMT and requested copies of the photographs. The EMT complied and sent the images. However, reportedly after receiving no follow-up, the EMT filed a report with the Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS), citing suspected patient neglect. Shortly thereafter, the EMT was instructed to delete the images and was subsequently terminated for noncompliance with company policy.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers’ compensation laws often intersect with personal injury claims, particularly in complex cases involving travel or injuries that occur outside a worker’s usual place of employment. In such cases, both the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) and applicable state law can determine whether the injured party may proceed with a claim. A recent case illustrates the significant impact of choice-of-law decisions in the workers’ compensation context and the importance of timely filing within the relevant statute of limitations. If you were hurt while traveling for work, you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff, a Connecticut resident employed by a Massachusetts-based company, suffered an injury on a Delta Air Lines flight while traveling from Connecticut to Georgia for a work-related conference. Reportedly, the plaintiff’s employer, which had an office in Massachusetts, paid for the plaintiff’s travel, accommodations, and associated expenses as part of a continuing education program.

It is reported that while seated on the airplane, the plaintiff was struck by a beverage cart, which became unrestrained and collided with his knee. The incident allegedly led to significant pain, swelling, and, ultimately, a surgical procedure. The plaintiff received medical treatment in both Connecticut and Massachusetts before filing a claim in Massachusetts, asserting that he was injured in the course of employment and seeking compensation for negligence and breach of contract. The defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Continue reading →

Published on: |

Workers covered by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) are entitled to benefits for injuries sustained during employment, including the aggravation of pre-existing conditions. While many employers will attempt to avoid paying benefits by arguing that such harm is not work-related, they often face an uphill battle, as illustrated in a recent Massachusetts case involving a maritime worker with a rare neurological disorder explaining the reach of the LHWCA in covering work-induced aggravations and the evidentiary burden employers must meet to avoid liability. If you sustained injuries while working, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly.

History of the Case

It is reported that the claimant, employed by a shipbuilding company, suffered from paramyoclonus multiplex, a neurological condition. It is alleged that the condition was aggravated by physical and emotional stressors at the workplace, including alleged harassment by co-workers. The claimant filed for compensation under the LHWCA, seeking total disability benefits on the grounds that his work environment caused his condition to worsen.

Continue reading →

Published on: |

The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) provides important federal protections for maritime workers, but eligibility requires that both a status and situs test be satisfied. A recent Massachusetts case illustrates how failure to meet the situs requirement can bar recovery, even if the injured worker was performing maritime-related functions, and demonstrates the strict geographic limitations placed on federal maritime compensation claims. If you were injured while working, you may be owed benefits, and it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation as soon as possible.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the claimant, employed by a shipbuilding company, suffered an injury while working at a pipe fabrication facility located approximately four miles inland from the main shipyard. It is alleged that the claimant’s work included manufacturing components used in shipbuilding and that the employer contended the facility supported maritime operations.

It is further reported that the fabrication site was not located adjacent to navigable waters but rather was separated by residential and commercial properties. A brook located near the facility was alleged to be non-navigable. The claimant applied for benefits under the LHWCA, asserting that the site qualified as an “adjoining area” under the statute.An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that the location failed the situs test and denied benefits. The Benefits Review Board upheld this finding. The claimant sought further review of the ruling.

Continue reading →