Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

When people die from injuries sustained at work, their surviving family members can often recover workers’ compensation benefits, including adjustments for the cost of living. Usually, such benefits are not actually paid by the deceased person’s employer but by their employer’s workers’ compensation insurer. In some cases in which multiple insurers are involved, one insurer may seek reimbursement from another. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed the time limitations for pursuing such claims in a matter in which a town argued that the statute of limitations barred claims for reimbursement. If you suffered the loss of a loved one in a workplace accident, it is in your best interest to meet with a dedicated Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to discuss what benefits you may be owed.

History of the Case

It is alleged that in 1976 an employee of the town died in an industrial accident. The town’s workers’ compensation insurer subsequently began paying the employee’s widow weekly benefits. Starting in 1986, the insurer also paid the widow supplemental cost of living benefits. Initially, the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund reimbursed the employer. At some time prior to 1992, though, the town joined a licensed self-insurance group and became responsible for paying new workers’ compensation claims.

It is reported that in 1992 the new self-insurance group opted out of the trust fund, but the prior insurer continued to receive reimbursement for the cost of living benefits. The trust fund later advised the insurer it would no longer reimburse it for prior claims, after which the insurer submitted the claims to the town. The town argued such claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations established by a Department of Industrial Accidents regulation. The town was ultimately ordered to pay the claims, after which it appealed. Continue reading →

Employees who sustain injuries in the workplace have the right to seek workers’ compensation benefits from their employers. Some employers will begrudgingly pay such benefits but then will retaliate against their employees for seeking such benefits. Employers who are terminated for seeking workers’ compensation benefits have a right to pursue additional claims against their employers, however. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed what an employee must prove to recover damages for wrongful termination, in a case in which the plaintiff alleged he was fired for exercising his right to seek workers’ compensation benefits. If you were fired after being hurt at work, it is smart to speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer about your options for seeking redress.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiffs worked for the defendants as corrections officers. In 2010, the administration of their department was transferred from the county to the Commonwealth. This resulted in the department receiving a charge for the cost of insurance for employees who were out on leave for more than a year.

Allegedly, as the cost of the insurance was not in the department’s budget, they terminated employees who were on leave for more than a year, including the plaintiffs. The letters the department sent to the plaintiffs stated that they were out on leave for more than a year and were receiving workers’ compensation benefits, and were unable to return to their prior positions. Continue reading →

Massachusetts, like many states, enacted a Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) that grants employees injured at work the right to recover benefits. The Act bars employees from pursuing civil claims against their employers, however. While employers will often assert that the exclusivity provision of the Act bars civil claims, it may not constitute grounds for dismissal of a case prior to the exchange of discovery, as demonstrated in a recent opinion issued by a Massachusetts court. If you were hurt at work, you could be owed benefits, and it is smart to meet with a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to determine your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed by a tool company as a machinist. The tool company was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the defendant. The plaintiff injured her hand on a machine while she was working and subsequently filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant. The plaintiff’s complaint asserted that the defendant should be held liable for negligence and negligent supervision.

It is reported that the plaintiff alleged the defendant breached its duty to provide a safe workplace, reasonably supervise the worksite, and ensure employees were properly trained. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing it was the statutory employer of the plaintiff and, therefore, her claims were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act. The court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, people hurt at work are limited in terms of recovery for their losses. Specifically, while work-related harm garners them the right to recover workers’ compensation benefits, it is at the exclusion of other civil damages pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). If an employee’s injury is not work-related, though, it may not fall under the terms of the Act. A Massachusetts court recently addressed the issue of what constitutes a work injury in a case involving an employee’s accidental overdose. If you lost a loved one because of a work-related injury, it is wise to confer with a skilled Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your right to recover benefits.

The Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the decedent, who was 16 years old, worked at a fast-food restaurant. She visited the restaurant during one of her days off and obtained narcotics from a co-worker. Later that day, she died of an accidental overdose. The decedent’s mother filed a wrongful death lawsuit against numerous parties, including those that had managerial, supervisory, and ownership interests in the restaurant.

It is reported that her complaint alleged that the defendants knew or should have known that the co-worker regularly used illegal drugs, and their failure to enforce their zero-tolerance drug policy caused the decedent’s death. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing, among other things, that her emotional distress claims were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, if a person dies because of a work-related accident, the person’s family members can generally cover workers’ compensation benefits. The exclusivity provision of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) extends to a deceased workers’ estate, however, which means that the estate cannot pursue civil claims against the deceased workers’ employer. In some instances, though, it may not be clear whether an employment relationship existed between a company and a deceased worker. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed the test for determining whether a part is immune from liability under the Act in a matter in which the decedent died in a trucking accident while working. If you lost a loved one due to a work-related accident, you might be owed benefits, and it is smart to meet with a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent was resting in the sleeper compartment of a commercial truck when the truck driver crashed into another tractor-trailer that was stopped on the highway. The decedent died due to the injuries sustained in the crash. Both the decedent and the driver of the truck worked for the defendant company. The driver was an independent contractor of the defendant company and entered into a lease agreement with the company, through which he obtained the right to use the truck.

Allegedly, the driver also entered into an agreement with a staffing company through which he “leased” driver trainees, such as the decedent, who could assist him in transporting freight. Pursuant to the staffing lease agreement, the driver was responsible for the conduct and supervision of leased drivers. Following the decedent’s death, his estate received workers’ compensation benefits from the staffing company. They then filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant driver’s estate and the defendant company. The defendant driver’s estate moved for summary judgment, arguing the estate’s claims were barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act. Continue reading →

People who sustain injuries in the workplace may be eligible to recover benefits under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). In exchange for the right to such benefits, the Act bars injured employees from pursuing personal injury claims against their employers for harm caused by injuries that arise out of employment. While in some cases, it is clear that a claim is precluded by the exclusivity provisions of the Act, in others, it may not be evident whether the harm in question constitutes a personal injury. This was demonstrated in a recent opinion issued in a Massachusetts case, in which the court discussed whether the Act barred an employee from seeking damages for emotional distress caused by workplace conditions. If you suffered injuries at work, it is advisable to speak to an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to determine what benefits you may be owed.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff worked for the defendant at a power plant. His managers began to harass him, causing him to suffer panic attacks, anxiety, and stress. He sought medical leave, but his request was denied. He was subsequently terminated. He then filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant, asserting numerous claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant responded by filing a motion to dismiss.

The Exclusivity Provision of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was both untimely and was barred by the Act’s exclusivity provision. The plaintiff did not submit a response to the defendant’s workers’ compensation allegations but argued that his claims were timely due to a complaint he filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act is the sole remedy for employees who suffer injuries, which means they have the right to recover benefits but are generally precluded from pursuing civil lawsuits against their employers. They can seek damages via civil claims against other parties, however. In some instances, a party will attempt to avoid liability by arguing it engaged in a joint venture with the employer of the injured individual. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed joint ventures in the context of workers’ compensation claims, in a matter in which the plaintiff was denied the right to recover damages. If you suffered harm at work, it is advisable to speak to a trusted Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to discuss your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff suffered injuries while working for his employer, a chain steakhouse. He filed a workers’ compensation claim and received benefits that listed the two defendant companies and the chain steakhouse as insureds. He then filed a civil lawsuit against the two defendant companies, alleging negligence.

Reportedly, the defendants filed an answer arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found that the defendants were engaged in a joint venture with the plaintiff’s employer. As such, the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Act. The plaintiff filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but the court denied her motion. She then appealed. Continue reading →

People who are hurt at work are often eligible to recover workers’ compensation benefits for their losses. It is not uncommon, however, for employers to argue that injured employees should not be granted benefits because their harm did not arise at work. An employer that fails to set forth such arguments at hearings related to a claim for benefits, though, cannot assert such defenses at a later date. This was demonstrated in a recent ruling issued in a Massachusetts workers’ compensation case in which a court affirmed a ruling in favor of the claimant. If you were hurt at work, you should meet with a skilled Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible to discuss what benefits you may be able to recover.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the claimant was hired by the defendant to work as a personal care nurse for the defendant’s mother. Initially, the claimant agreed to work for two hours a day in exchange for room and board. She also performed secretarial work and various domestic tasks, like washing dishes, taking out the garbage, and cleaning. It was understood that if she performed more than two hours of work a day, she would receive additional compensation, but the defendant never paid her for additional work.

Allegedly, the claimant slipped and fell, taking out the garbage, and injured her back and neck. She could not work after the accident and filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The administrative judge found that the claimant was employed as a domestic worker on the date of the injury and that she worked thirty to forty hours a week and was therefore owed benefits. The defendant appealed the award, which was affirmed by the reviewing board. The defendant appealed again. Continue reading →

While most people think of workers’ compensation claims as arising out of bodily injuries, claimants can also seek benefits for illnesses they develop due to workplace conditions. In many cases, occupational illnesses take years to develop, and it can be difficult to demonstrate a causal link between a workplace and an ailment. A claimant the fails to adequately prove causation may be denied benefits, as demonstrated in a recent Massachusetts ruling issued in a workers compensation case. If you sustained an illness because of your work environment, you might be owed benefits from your employer, and you should speak to a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that in 1968, the claimants assisted in the cleanup of radioactive materials that were released at a United States military base in Greenland. During the process, they were exposed to plutonium radiation. They later developed illnesses that they alleged were the result of their exposure and filed claims for workers’ compensation benefits under the Defense Base Act, which is an extension of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). The administrative law judge conducted a series of hearings but ultimately denied their claims. The claimants then filed a petition for review.

Recovering Benefits for Occupational Illnesses

The LHWCA provides compensation for injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment. The LHWCA provides, in part, that injuries include occupational infections and diseases that arise naturally out of employment or as an inevitable result of an accidental injury. Thus, in order to receive benefits under the LHWCA, a claimant must demonstrate that there is a causal nexus between his ailment and his employment activities. Continue reading →