Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

Continue reading →

Workplace safety in residential treatment facilities can be challenging to maintain, particularly when employees work directly with clients who present significant behavioral risks. When a violent incident occurs, grieving families often search for answers and accountability, and organizations face intense scrutiny over the policies that shaped the conditions of employment. A recent Massachusetts decision confronts these questions head-on by addressing whether the Workers’ Compensation Act precludes the directors of a charitable mental health provider from being held personally liable after an employee was killed on the job. If you or a family member suffered a workplace injury, you should speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the decedent worked as a residential counselor for a charitable mental health provider that accepted referrals from Massachusetts agencies and served clients with complex psychiatric and criminal histories. During one of her shifts, the decedent was left alone with a resident who attacked her, causing her death.

It is alleged that the estate later filed a wrongful death action in Superior Court against the director defendants, psychiatric consultants involved in the resident’s placement, the Commonwealth, and the resident himself. The complaint asserted that the director defendants failed to develop, or failed to maintain, essential admissions and screening procedures, workplace safety measures, staffing structures, and training protocols. It also asserted that inadequate access to referral information and insufficient preparation of frontline staff placed employees in dangerous positions. Continue reading →

Employers who fail to carry workers’ compensation insurance expose themselves to serious legal and financial risks. When an uninsured employee is injured, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund may step in to pay benefits, but it will aggressively seek reimbursement from the noncompliant employer. A recent Massachusetts decision illustrates how swiftly the courts can act when an employer ignores these obligations and fails to respond to a civil action. If you are an employee seeking compensation for a workplace injury, it is essential to contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly to discuss what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff, the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund, brought suit against the defendant employer after it paid benefits to an injured worker who had been employed without the required insurance coverage. The Fund filed its complaint in May 2023, seeking reimbursement for all benefits paid, as well as attorneys’ fees and litigation costs associated with both the administrative proceedings before the Department of Industrial Accidents and the civil enforcement action.

Allegedly, the defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint but failed to file an answer or other responsive pleading within the time permitted by law. In October 2023, the clerk’s office entered a default against the defendant. Despite receiving notice of the default, the defendant took no further action to contest the allegations or seek to have the default set aside.

Continue reading →

Employees working remotely for out-of-state companies often face complex jurisdictional hurdles when bringing employment-related claims. An opinion recently issued by a Massachusetts court demonstrates how Massachusetts courts evaluate whether they can exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign or out-of-state employer accused of violating employment rights. If you work remotely from Massachusetts for an out-of-state company and believe your legal rights have been violated, consult a Massachusetts employment attorney to understand where and how your claims can be brought.

Background of the Dispute

It is reported that the plaintiff, a software engineer residing in Massachusetts, filed suit against the defendant, a Delaware company with principal operations outside Massachusetts. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and violations of Massachusetts wage and employment laws after the termination of his remote employment. The Defendant moved to dismiss the case, asserting a lack of personal jurisdiction under both the Massachusetts long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiff claimed that although the defendant had no physical offices in Massachusetts, he performed his job entirely from his home in the Commonwealth, attended virtual meetings, and received compensation in Massachusetts. He argued these contacts constituted sufficient business activity to bring the defendant within Massachusetts jurisdiction. Continue reading →

When a workplace injury results from a company’s disregard for worker safety, Massachusetts law provides an avenue for enhanced compensation. Under Massachusetts’s workers’ compensation law, an employee who proves that an employer’s conduct was “serious and willful” may recover double benefits. A recent Massachusetts ruling illustrates how courts analyze the sufficiency of such claims and determine whether evidence of safety violations rises to the level of “serious and willful misconduct.” If you have suffered a workplace injury and believe your employer ignored safety protocols, contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can evaluate what benefits you may be able to recover.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was injured during the course of his employment. He pursued workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that his employer’s safety failures constituted “serious and willful misconduct.” The employee asserted that management knowingly allowed unsafe working conditions and failed to take corrective action after previous incidents and warnings.

Allegedly, the injury occurred while the plaintiff was engaged in physically demanding labor involving heavy equipment. He claimed that the employer’s supervisors were aware of the risks posed by the method of work being used but failed to implement safety measures or training required by company policy and industry standards. The plaintiff filed a claim for double compensation pursuant to § 28, which permits enhanced benefits where an employer’s misconduct is more than mere negligence and shows a reckless disregard for worker safety. Continue reading →

People injured while working on or near navigable waters may be entitled to disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). The Act provides a structured framework to ensure that qualifying employees receive financial assistance after a workplace injury. One critical issue in determining the amount of benefits available is identifying the date when an employee is considered “newly awarded compensation.” Recently, the United States Supreme Court examined this question and clarified its meaning. If you suffered a work-related injury on the waterfront, it is important to understand how the timing of your award could affect the benefits you receive.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

Allegedly, the petitioner worked for the defendant at a marine terminal in Alaska, where he slipped on ice in 2002 and injured his neck and shoulder. The petitioner was unable to return to work. Reportedly, the defendant voluntarily paid the petitioner disability benefits, except for a brief period in 2003, without any formal compensation order being issued.

It is reported that in 2005, the defendant stopped making voluntary payments. As a result, the petitioner filed a formal claim under the LHWCA, which the defendant contested. The dispute was heard by an administrative law judge (ALJ) in 2007, who awarded the petitioner benefits based on the statutory maximum for the year 2002, when the disability began. The petitioner argued that the award should have been calculated using the higher statutory maximum rate in effect in 2007, the year of the ALJ’s order. Continue reading →

Families who lose a loved one in a workplace accident often feel a natural desire to pursue justice through the courts. Yet, under Massachusetts law, many of these claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. These provisions are designed to ensure uniform remedies but can sometimes leave families with no recourse against an employer, even in heartbreaking circumstances. A recent decision from the Supreme Judicial Court illustrates just how far this exclusivity rule extends. If you or a loved one has suffered harm at work, it is critical to understand how workers’ compensation law affects your rights, and you should consult an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent, an 18-year-old high school student working at a Boston pharmacy, attempted with other employees to stop a suspected shoplifter. Reportedly, the suspect responded with sudden violence, stabbing the decedent in the neck and causing fatal injuries almost instantly.

Allegedly, the decedent had no dependents, though he lived with his mother and was financially connected to both of his parents. Because he left no dependents, no workers’ compensation death benefits were paid, aside from funeral expenses voluntarily covered by a related corporation. Continue reading →

Employees who experience harassment in the workplace may understandably wish to pursue a variety of legal remedies. However, Massachusetts law provides carefully structured statutory schemes that limit the avenues for relief. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court demonstrates how exclusivity provisions in the Workers’ Compensation Act can block employees from bringing common law or alternative statutory claims. If you have faced workplace harassment or discrimination, it is critical to understand these limits and to seek advice from an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can guide you through the proper channels.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company from 1985 until her termination in 1992. During her employment, she was subjected to ongoing sexual harassment in multiple departments, including threats, obscene remarks, sexual slurs, and offensive visual displays. The employer held occasional meetings in response to her complaints but failed to take meaningful corrective action. The plaintiff further alleged that when she requested a change in her schedule or work environment, her requests were largely denied, and she continued to be exposed to harassment.

It is reported that the plaintiff’s employment was ultimately terminated, and as a result of the hostile work environment she endured, she suffered severe emotional distress. She filed a lawsuit asserting multiple claims, including violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, and G.L. c. 214, § 1C, which guarantees a right to be free from sexual harassment. She also brought common law claims for negligent supervision, failure to investigate, breach of contract, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

Victims of sexual harassment or assault in the workplace often feel entitled to pursue every legal avenue against their employer. However, Massachusetts law channels such claims into specific statutory schemes, leaving little room for common law actions. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights how the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the state’s anti-discrimination law can bar victims and their families from seeking additional remedies in court. If you or a loved one experienced harassment or assault at work, it is critical to understand these limitations and to speak to a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation attorney promptly about the proper way to preserve your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff was working at a retail store when she was assaulted and raped by an assistant store manager who was not scheduled to work that evening. The manager sent other employees home, leaving the plaintiff alone before committing the assault.

Allegedly, the employer had previously disciplined the assistant store manager for inappropriate conduct, including sexual harassment, and had received complaints from other employees about his behavior. Following the incident, the employer terminated the assistant store manager. Continue reading →