Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

Workers’ compensation benefits are often treated as a financial lifeline for employees injured on the job, but the characterization and distribution of such benefits can become complex when family law intersects with injury compensation. A recent decision by a Massachusetts court highlights how workers’ compensation proceeds may be treated as marital property and can factor into child support enforcement actions. If you were injured at work, it is important to understand your rights and how any benefits you may be owed could be treated in future litigation, and you should speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can help clarify your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the parties married in 2013 following a lengthy personal and financial relationship, during which they shared expenses and jointly purchased property. The marriage ultimately broke down by 2020. The husband, employed by a commuter rail service, reportedly experienced several periods of disability due to job-related injuries and surgeries.

It is alleged that the husband received a net workers’ compensation settlement of $200,000 in 2020 related to his workplace injuries. By the time of the divorce trial, he claimed only limited income, specifically, $788 per week from workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance, and was no longer employed by his previous employer. The trial judge did not credit the husband’s assertions that his departure from work was medically necessary and found that he had made no effort to seek reemployment. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, municipal employees alleging workplace discrimination or retaliatory treatment must navigate a complex landscape of statutory protections and common-law limitations. A recent decision from the Massachusetts court demonstrates how the Workers’ Compensation Act, procedural pleading rules, and the limited scope of certain tort doctrines can narrow the path for plaintiffs seeking redress. If you suffered an injury at work, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney at your earliest convenience.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed by a town fire department beginning in 1998. In late 2020, a town nurse reportedly contacted the fire chief after receiving an anonymous call from the wife of a firefighter. The caller conveyed that a firefighter’s son had tested positive for COVID-19, yet the firefighter had still been permitted to respond to emergency calls. Following this report, the chief allegedly addressed the department, expressing suspicion and anger over the breach of medical privacy. He stated he was “98% sure” he knew the identity of the informant and urged that individual to submit a resignation letter.

It is reported that the chief soon accused the plaintiff of being the source of the disclosure and urged him to resign. The plaintiff denied the accusation and purportedly produced text messages implicating a younger firefighter. Nonetheless, the chief persisted in his belief that the plaintiff or his wife made the call. In February 2021, the chief asserted that the town nurse had confirmed the plaintiff’s wife was the caller, which she denied. The chief again requested the plaintiff’s resignation and allegedly accused him of insubordination when he refused. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, the workers’ compensation system is often the only avenue for injured workers to obtain benefits following a job-related injury. However, when injuries result from the negligence of another contractor or party on a shared worksite, injured workers may seek damages through third-party tort claims. A recent decision by a Massachusetts court illustrates the legal hurdles plaintiffs face when pursuing civil claims against subcontractors who assert workers’ compensation immunity. If you have been injured on the job and believe your injuries were caused by another contractor’s negligence, a Massachusetts workers’ compensation and personal injury attorney can help you explore every available legal remedy.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, a supplier of mast climbing work platforms, brought suit against a masonry subcontractor and others after an accident at a construction site in Boston. The plaintiff alleged that its employee was injured while dismantling one of the platforms and that the injury was caused by the negligence of the subcontractor’s foreman and crew, who had allegedly altered the platform’s configuration and left it in an unsafe condition.

It is alleged that the subcontractor had hired the plaintiff’s company to provide the platforms as part of a larger masonry project. After the masonry work was completed, the plaintiff’s employee returned to the site to dismantle the equipment. During the process, a platform component collapsed, resulting in injury. The plaintiff sought damages under theories of negligence and vicarious liability. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, emotional and psychological injuries are compensable under workers’ compensation law when they arise from identifiable workplace events or conditions. However, when such injuries stem from internal conflicts, professional feedback, or typical employment actions, the law imposes limits. A recent decision by the Massachusetts Reviewing Board illustrates the strict standards applied to claims for mental injuries allegedly caused by workplace stress or supervisory decisions. If you are experiencing emotional harm related to your job, a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help you determine whether your injury meets the legal requirements for compensation.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is alleged that the employee, a longtime case specialist at a Massachusetts Trial Court, filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits based on psychological harm she attributed to persistent bullying by her supervisor. The employee stated that beginning in early 2016, she experienced episodes of anxiety and panic attacks at work. According to her testimony, her supervisor singled her out for criticism, micromanaged her tasks, and excluded her from professional opportunities. The employee asserted that this pattern of conduct resulted in depression and anxiety, for which she sought medical treatment and eventually took a leave of absence.

It is reported that the employee presented medical evidence in support of her claim, including records from her treating physician and a Section 11A impartial examiner. Both sets of medical opinions diagnosed her with an anxiety disorder and depressive symptoms. However, the impartial examiner opined that the employee’s symptoms were largely attributable to preexisting factors, including a personal history of trauma and longstanding anxiety, rather than specific incidents at work. Continue reading →

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 →