Published on: |

When accidents happen at the workplace, the injured person has no control over the severity of the injury and whether or not he or she suffered from other medical ailments independent of the workplace. Pre-existing conditions often present large hurdles to obtaining workers’ compensation benefits. While fault or negligence does not have to be shown, the injury must have occurred while furthering the business of the employer. Complex medical records and expert testimony from physicians or other medical professions may be necessary to show the origins of the injury and what type of medical treatment will be necessary to make the employee whole from the work-place accident.

In Lastih v. Erickson Retirement Community, a bus driver for a retirement community injured her lower back while lifting a resident’s walker. After a denial by the insurance company for benefits, she sought a hearing in front of a Workers’ Compensation Judge, where the insurance company claimed that she had pre-existing conditions as its defense. The judge ruled in favor of the injured bus driver, relying on testimony from the impartial medical examiner, who opined that she sustained lumbar and sacroiliac (lower back) strain that aggravated the pre-existing degenerative joint and disc disease in her spine. The judge found her to be totally incapacitated and ordered benefits. No party appealed this decision.

Two years later, the insurer filed to have the benefits discontinued, which was denied. The insurer then had another impartial medical examiner assess the injured bus driver. The insurer withdrew the appeal following the report, and the employee filed for total, permanent incapacity benefits. After an additional examination, reports, and appeals, the judge awarded total and permanent benefits. The judge found that the employee’s disability was casually related to the injuries she sustained when lifting the resident’s wheelchair onto the bus.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

In Massachusetts, when a medical malpractice action is filed in court, the case must be submitted to the Massachusetts Medical Malpractice Tribunal (MMT) for review. The MMT was established in the mid-1970s, and it does not apply to those who present claims in a letter addressed to the healthcare provider. The tribunal has one superior court judge, an attorney, and a Massachusetts-licensed healthcare provider. The provider is often a physician but can be a nurse, pharmacist, or physical therapist; and he or she must be a provider that works in the same medical specialty in which the alleged injury occurred.

Tribunals ask the question of whether or not the injured person or the deceased person’s estate has enough properly substantiated evidence to bring a case before a jury. A statement from an expert stating the standard of care was breached and caused injury to the patient must be included. The MMT reviews medical, hospital, and office records to make a determination. If two of the three panelists agree with the injured patient, the case can proceed. If the MMT agrees with the defendant hospital or physician, a bond has to be posted to proceed.

In a Massachusetts case, Thou v. Russo, the Appeals Court reviewed an appeal from a dismissed malpractice action. The deceased patient suffered a heart attack after liposuction and abdominoplasty procedures. The injured patient’s estate filed suit against the anesthesiologist, who used a solution containing lidocaine and epinephrine delivered through “several small stab incisions” in the areas to be suctioned. During the surgery, the patient’s blood pressure dropped, and emergency procedures were performed for an hour and a half. The patient became stable for an hour and a half but eventually went into cardiac arrest.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

Massachusetts residents often travel to nearby states, and several out-of-state drivers make their way to Massachusetts. If an accident occurs in Massachusetts, and the at-fault party has an out-of-state policy, the question of which law applies may arise in a personal injury action, especially if there’s a difference in the required minimum coverage. Individual states each have their own car insurance policy requirements that dictate minimum amounts of coverage. Individual insurance companies have uniquely written policies that comply with the state in which they are licensed. As medical bills add up, maximizing the amount paid by an insurance company can mean saving thousands of dollars, and a judicial determination of which law applies can affect how much is paid out of pocket.

A Massachusetts state appellate case, Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co. vs. Arbella Mutual Ins. Co., provides an example of how state courts handle this situation. In this case, a woman was driving a loaner car from her dealership when she had a car accident with four other vehicles. The loaner car was covered by an insurance policy in Rhode Island. When there are two competing laws that could apply to a car accident, the forum state’s conflict-of-laws rules choose which state’s law is applicable. The accident in Clarendon occurred in Massachusetts, so the court looked to Massachusetts case law and the Restatement of Conflict of Laws to determine whether Massachusetts or Rhode Island insurance law applied.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

When workers are injured in Massachusetts, they have access to different types of workers’ compensation benefits: temporary disability, permanent partial disability, and permanent total disability. When filing a claim for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act, there is no need to prove that a co-worker or employer was negligent. An injured worker must only show that there was an injury that occurred during the course of employment. This can require extensive medical testimony, and it usually involves a prediction about the effects of the injury upon the worker in the future.

The questions, “Is there anything I can do if my condition worsens?” and “What happens if my benefits run out?” may arise following an award of permanent partial disability. The Reviewing Board Decision of Tsitsilianos v. Worcester Housing Authority sheds some light on the process. In this case, the Board looks at two cases determining the award and claim of partial incapacity and total incapacity benefits under § 35 and § 34 benefits, respectively.

A Massachusetts industrial worker had previously been awarded payment of § 35 benefits, including medical bills and psychiatric treatment for an accident that resulted in bilateral trauma to his calf muscles and depression. However, the judge denied full disability, since the orthopedic physician opined that he could still perform full-time sedentary light work. After the employee exhausted his § 35 benefits, he refiled for total incapacity benefits, which were denied at conference. During an appeal, additional medical evidence regarding the worker’s physical injuries was submitted, but the judge determined there was insufficient proof of the worker’s mental health decline and denied benefits.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

Civil litigation revolves around questions of whether the named party or parties were negligent and whether the defendant or defendants caused the injury. There is less of a general discussion around another element that must be proven: damages. It is easy to assume that if someone was injured, he or she is probably paying for doctors’ bills and prescriptions that were previously absent from his or her daily life. However, if the injured party had pre-existing medical conditions with overlapping symptoms, the proof becomes much more intricate than providing a stack of receipts to the court. Medical experts may be necessary to testify as to what physical and psychological conditions, and therefore treatment of those conditions, can be attributed to the accident. Testimony may also be necessary to not only show what happened in the past but advise what lifelong impairments will result from the injury.

In a recently published decision, Fyffe v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals addressed several issues stemming from a damages-only trial. The woman was injured when she rode a public transit trolley that crashed into another trolley. Both sides agreed that the operator was negligent, but they disagreed as to what the defendants’ obligation was for reasonable and fair compensation for the injuries she suffered. The woman was employed as a gate agent for an airline and suffered injuries to her spine from the accident. The injuries prevented her from performing one of her main duties of lifting heavy suitcases. She was able to earn up to $40,000 per year plus benefits and was eligible for a 4% raise every three years, but she found herself working as a waitress for around $15,000 a year due to her injuries.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

You may be eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if you have become incapacitated in a way that would prevent you from maintaining employment. To obtain these benefits, you must be unable to work as a result of a medical condition that will last more than a year or result in death. The condition does not have to be work-related. In order to qualify for SSDI, you must have worked, but employment history is not necessary for SSI.

The United District Court of Massachusetts issued an opinion in Burgos v. Mastroianni regarding the final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration in denying a woman’s application for SSI benefits. In any review of a decision to deny benefits, the District Court is obligated to uphold the decision if the ruling is supported by substantial evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

Assumption of the risk is a term you may have heard while participating in an activity that is either strenuous or involves an amount of danger. A company may ask you to sign a waiver of liability before you or a friend bungee jumps or rides across a zip line. Waivers of liability can also be found at gyms or participant sporting events. When death or injury happens to a participant in an athletic activity, the tragedy is amplified by the fact the injured person was attempting to enhance, not hinder, health. If injury or death occurs, questions may arise as to whether or not a signed waiver of liability can act as a complete shield to accountability in the civil justice system.

Recently, the United States District Court of Massachusetts rendered a Memorandum and Order in Angelo v. USA Triathlon, which supported a portion and denied a portion of the organization’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The deceased person was a member of a Triathlon association and signed an agreement to waive and release the liability of the organization. During the triathlon, the man died during or shortly after the swimming event. The wife filed suit on behalf of his estate and alleged that the organization wrongfully caused his death, pain and suffering prior to his death, and infliction of emotional distress as a result of the company’s gross negligence. The triathlon company moved for partial summary judgment, based on the signed waiver of indemnity agreements.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

As school and extra-curricular activities pick up around the state of Massachusetts, concern over serious and permanent injuries may arise among parents. Even with the best of care and protective gear, accidents can happen on sports fields or while in a bus on the way to an activity. No parent wants to see any type of harm befall his or her child, but knowledge of what options are available in the event of an injury is essential when there is a catastrophic injury to the head, neck, or spine. Accountability is also important if a person or facility failed to maintain safe premises as required by law. A civil action may provide the remedies you need by holding an at-fault party responsible for negligence and receiving payments for the money spent on medical expenses.

One of the first steps of a personal injury suit is determining who is responsible for the injury. In most auto accident cases, it is a straightforward determination that the driver of the car that caused the harm is the responsible party. In other personal injury suits, several parties can share blame for the injury. In the 2013 Massachusetts case, Moore v. Town of Billerica, the Court looked at whether or not the city should be held accountable for a serious head injury sustained by a child at a public baseball field. The trial court denied the city’s motion for summary judgment, which claimed that it could not be sued due to the protection of sovereign immunity.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

A slip and fall in Massachusetts can lead to injuries ranging from minor cuts and scrapes to serious head, spine, and back injuries. Slip and fall injuries can occur anywhere outside the home, including shopping centers, public sidewalks, and the workplace. If civil action is taken in a slip and fall accident, the injured person typically files a personal injury suit. However, when the accident occurs in the workplace, a workers’ compensation claim must be filed with the employer, and monetary payments are handled by the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance. The recovery covers past and future lost wages and payment for medical expenses and doctors’ visits.

Insurers will often try to limit the amount of payment made to an injured worker and may utilize the appellate process to protest awards given by a workers’ compensation judge or review board. In a recent Reviewing Board Decision, Sullivan v. Centrus Premier Home Care, a recommitted decision was affirmed in favor of the injured visiting nurse. While the injured nurse was visiting a patient, she sustained injuries to her back, knee, and hip in a slip and fall accident.

At the underlying hearing, the judge, when finding for the injured nurse, relied on the nurse’s testimony of complaints of pain and physical restrictions, as well as the medical opinions of one of the physicians who testified that she sustained a traumatic strain to her lumbar spine that required surgery. The injured nurse had a previous condition, but the doctor opined that the work accident contributed to 50% of her condition. While the doctor ruled that the treatment for the spine was reasonable, he determined that the peripheral joint disease, peripheral arthralgia, neck pain, and right knee pain were unrelated to the work injury. The judge adopted these medical findings and awarded recovery for the spinal treatment and surgery. The Judge also found that the nurse was temporarily and totally incapacitated from gainful employment.
Continue reading →

Published on: |

To succeed in a Massachusetts personal injury case, an injured person must show that the at-fault party was more than 50% responsible for the injuries suffered. In negligence actions, the defendant must owe a duty to the injured person, and the injured person is required to show that the defendant breached this duty and caused injury as a result of the breach. Recovery is possible, even if the injured person’s actions at the time of the accident contributed to the injury, as long as the percentage of responsibility remains lower than the defendant’s. This is known as comparative negligence, and it is codified under Ch. 231, Sec. 85 of the Massachusetts General Laws. While recovery is still possible, the amount of damages awarded can be reduced by the injured person’s percentage of negligence.

In Rose v. Highway Equipment Company, the Appeals Court reviewed a man’s claim against the manufacturer of a broadcast spreader for negligence and breach of warranty. The man’s hand was severely injured following an accident with the spreader while oiling the chain. For the negligence claim, the jury found the injured man to be 73% negligent and the company to be 27% negligent, which precluded any recovery because he was deemed to be predominantly responsible for his own injuries.

For the breach of warranty claim, the jury found that the man was unreasonable in his use of the equipment. As stated in the opinion, breach of warranty actions generally focus on the nature of the product, not the actions of the user, unless the user acted unreasonably. If the injured person used the product after he or she knew it was defective and dangerous, the injured person is completely barred from any type of recovery. The appellate court upheld the jury’s determination against the injured person, finding there was enough evidence to support their decision. The testimony provided during trial revealed the injured person understood the dangerous nature of the project, failed to read the safety manual, and had oiled the machine several times.
Continue reading →

Contact Information
128 Dean St
Taunton, MA 02780
Phone: 508-822-6600Fax: 508-822-8006

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Law Office of James K. Meehan
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design