Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

Massachusetts workers’ compensation law generally provides the exclusive remedy for employees injured in the course of employment. However, certain tort claims may fall outside that statutory bar if they arise from intentional and malicious conduct rather than mere workplace injury or negligence. A recent decision from a Massachusetts Court clarifies when the exclusivity provision does and does not apply to claims for emotional distress allegedly caused by coworkers and supervisors. If you are suffering from mental or emotional injuries related to workplace treatment, a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help you evaluate your legal remedies.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, a judicial staff attorney at the Massachusetts Appeals Court, brought a civil action against a coworker, a supervisor, and a court administrator, alleging intentional interference with advantageous relations. The plaintiff claimed the defendants orchestrated a campaign of harassment and malicious conduct that culminated in his termination. According to the complaint, the coworker expressed hostility toward the plaintiff’s professional background, discouraged staff from attending his writing seminar, and solicited criticism from judges. Following a promotion, she began issuing negative evaluations.

It is alleged that the supervisor initially praised the plaintiff’s work but later began criticizing his performance, extending his probation and permitting the coworker to oversee his work. Reports from other staff attorneys indicated the plaintiff was subjected to unique scrutiny and undue pressure. The supervisor did not intervene when informed of the coworker’s behavior. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, public employees seeking accidental disability retirement benefits must prove that their disability is the natural and proximate result of a workplace injury. This standard requires clear, persuasive medical evidence, typically from a regional medical panel. A recent decision by a Massachusetts highlights the challenges claimants face when panel findings are equivocal. If your claim for disability retirement has been denied due to medical uncertainty or panel findings, a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help protect your rights.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the claimant, a public employee serving as a truck driver for a Massachusetts Department of Public Works, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits following a low back injury he sustained while lifting heavy equipment. The claimant reported that the injury occurred when he attempted to lift a plow blade weighing over 100 pounds. Following the incident, he sought medical treatment and eventually ceased working due to ongoing pain and functional limitations.

It is alleged that the claimant underwent an evaluation by a regional medical panel pursuant to G.L. c. 32, § 6(3)(a). The panel unanimously concluded that the claimant was permanently disabled from performing the essential duties of his position. However, the panel also stated that it could not determine with certainty whether the disability was caused primarily by the work-related injury. The panel’s report used qualified language and stated that there was “no clear-cut evidence” linking the injury to the present disability. Continue reading →

Continue reading →

In workers’ compensation cases, a claimant must establish that a workplace injury is the predominant cause of their disability. Disputes over causation often hinge on medical evidence and the credibility of expert testimony. A recent decision by a Massachusetts court highlights the legal standards that apply when a worker alleges permanent disability from multiple injuries over time. If you are struggling to obtain benefits following a work-related injury, a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help protect your rights and advocate for the benefits you deserve.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, a veteran employee of a Massachusetts sheriff’s department, suffered a series of injuries while working as a correctional officer. These injuries included incidents in 2006, 2008, and 2011 involving falls, physical altercations with inmates, and repeated trauma to the knees and back. The plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits for these injuries and eventually applied for accidental disability retirement, citing cumulative physical deterioration from the job as the reason for his permanent inability to work.

It is alleged that a regional medical panel evaluated the plaintiff and concluded that he was permanently disabled, but the panel could not unanimously agree that the disability was substantially caused by work-related incidents. Despite this lack of consensus, the plaintiff’s application was approved by the retirement board, which found that the work injuries were a major contributing factor to his current condition. The Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC) intervened and appealed the board’s decision, asserting that the causation evidence was insufficient. Continue reading →

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.

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 →

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 →

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 →

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 →

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 →