Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Lawyer Blawg

Depending on the circumstances, a pre-existing injury can limit a Massachusetts employee’s right to recover workers’ compensation benefits. In David Corazzini v. Diamond Chevrolet, Board No. 025919-09, a man was employed as a salesperson for an automobile dealership. In addition to his sales duties, the worker was responsible for maintaining the property and snow removal. In January 2009, the employee was apparently injured in a fall while exiting a snow plow. More than one month later, the worker sought treatment for his neck injury at a local hospital. Despite his harm, the man continued to work for his employer until October 2009.

After leaving his sales position, the employee sought workers’ compensation benefits for his neck injury and related back pain. The car dealership responded by stating the business was not liable for the employee’s injuries because the work incident was not the sole cause of the man’s resulting pain. After that, the man was examined by an impartial physician pursuant to § 11A. Prior to a hearing on the matter, the employer and the worker both submitted additional medical evidence to an administrative law judge for review.

Continue reading →

The United States government stopped monitoring the workers’ compensation system in Massachusetts and other states more than a decade ago. According to an investigation recently conducted by NPR and ProPublica, workers’ compensation reform measures passed since that time have left injured employees fighting for their right to receive such no-fault medical and other benefits. Taxpayers in Massachusetts and throughout the U.S. are reportedly spending billions of dollars each year on Social Security disability, Medicaid, and Medicare coverage in order to provide medical and other benefits that are no longer offered by state workers’ compensation systems. At the same time, employers are apparently paying historically low workers’ compensation premiums.

After analyzing insurance industry records and state workers’ compensation laws, ProPublica found that 33 states have passed legislation that reduced or made it tougher to obtain workers’ compensation benefit payments since 2003. In 37 states, employees who are hurt at work must seek treatment from an assigned doctor or choose a physician from a preapproved list provided by an employer. In addition, some states have instituted a time limit for receiving workers’ compensation benefits that is altogether unrelated to an employee’s actual rate of recovery.

Continue reading →

Seven Massachusetts employers were recently awarded a combined total of more than $100,000 in grants that were issued to provide safety training to more than 550 workers. The Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents Office of Safety administers and manages the Workplace Safety Training and Education Grant program. This program was designed to encourage the creation of safe workplaces through training and preventative programs geared towards individuals and businesses covered by the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Law.

Each year, approximately $800,000 is budgeted to the grant program. Following a competitive application procedure, each business that is selected may receive up to $25,000 for safety programs during a fiscal year. Since its inception, thousands of workers and employers in Massachusetts have benefited from the educational opportunities afforded by the program. The most recent round of grant awards constituted the last payments scheduled for the current fiscal year.

Continue reading →

In Brian LaFleur v. M.C.I. Shirley, the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents Reviewing Board recommitted a workers’ compensation case to an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) for further findings of fact with regard to the effect a worker’s 1998 knee injury had on his 2008 workplace accident harm under § 1(7A). After the ALJ issued his findings, the worker’s employer filed an appeal over the judge’s decision. The employer argued the ALJ violated its due process rights, committed error when he conducted a status conference off the record, exhibited bias against the employer, exceeded the scope of the Board’s recommittal order, and inappropriately prejudged the employee’s prospective § 34A benefits claim.

According to the Board, an ALJ only possesses those powers set forth in Chapter 152. Since no additional authority was conferred on the ALJ, the Board held that he exceeded his authority when he took action beyond those issues recommitted to him. Similarly, the Board said the judge committed error when he conducted a status conference off the record because all significant workers’ compensation proceedings must be transcribed in order to preserve the record for any potential appeals. The Board said to do otherwise prevents meaningful appellate review and impairs the appearance of ALJ impartiality.

Continue reading →

In 2005, the employee who filed In Re Hines’s Case purportedly broke his ankle after he slipped and fell while working as a personal attendant in Massachusetts. As a result of his injury, the employee apparently underwent two surgeries. At the time, the worker received temporary total incapacity benefit payments. About two years later, the company that provided workers’ compensation insurance to the man’s employer sought to terminate the employee’s benefits. In response, the worker joined an additional claim for psychiatric benefits.

At a hearing before an administrative judge, the insurer argued that surveillance tapes and other evidence indicated the worker was no longer disabled. After considering the evidence offered, the judge ordered that the employee’s workers’ compensation benefits be discontinued. According to the judge, there was no reason the worker could not return to his prior position as a personal attendant. The Department of Industrial Accidents Reviewing Board affirmed the judge’s decision, and the Appeals Court of Massachusetts then dismissed the case for lack of prosecution.

Continue reading →

A workers’ compensation judge has the freedom to consider different doctors’ opinions before deciding whether to award workers’ compensation benefits. The judge is not limited to the most restrictive opinion but may award benefits if any of the physicians who examine the injured worker has the opinion that the worker can no longer work, for instance because of chronic pain. The insurer, Massachusetts Retail Merchants, AIG, in the case of Remberto Galdamez appealed from a decision awarding Mr. Galdamez § 34A permanent and total incapacity benefits. The Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents Reviewing Board affirmed the award of benefits at Board No. 037394-08.

Laborer Injured Loading Fish

Mr. Galdamez, born and raised in El Salvador, came to the United States in 1987. Within days of arriving in the United States, he began working as a laborer for Channel Fish Co., Inc. On September 19, 2008, he suffered a work-related injury when a heavy barrel rolled off a truck and landed on his shoulder and neck. He continued to work until the pain became overwhelming. He then attempted light duty, but, according to the employer’s testimony, he was not able to perform any physical work. Mr. Galdamez was examined by Dr. John Lynch, the impartial physician, pursuant to G.L. c.152, § 11A(2). Although the report was deemed adequate, in response to joint motions filed by the parties, the judge allowed additional medical evidence due to the complexity of the medical issues.

Employees in Massachusetts generally cannot directly sue their employers for any injuries sustained at their jobs. Instead, employers across the Commonwealth must purchase “no fault” workers’ compensation insurance, which is part of a system that is intended to protect workers who are tragically killed or suffer a serious injury in a workplace accident. Unfortunately, some Massachusetts employers endeavor to avoid paying their fair share of workers’ compensation premiums. Employers who are caught doing so can face both financial and criminal penalties.

According to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Chelsea man was recently charged with committing worker’s compensation fraud in an effort to avoid paying almost $50,000 in workers’ compensation premiums. The 50-year-old man allegedly underreported the total payroll at a now defunct Dorchester temporary employment agency, where he acted as operations manager, to cut costs. Although the agency operated a payroll of more than $2 million between 2007 and 2009, the man reported to his workers’ compensation insurer that the amount was less than $200,000. He was apparently granted a lower insurance premium based on the purportedly bogus numbers.

Continue reading →

Under Massachusetts law, a surviving spouse or other close family member may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits following an employee’s workplace death. Still, the benefits that are available depend on the facts of each case. In Walsh v. Courier Corp., a Massachusetts machine and forklift operator collapsed at work in 2010. Unfortunately, the man was pronounced deceased at a local hospital about an hour after his shift ended. According to the man’s treating physician, the worker’s cause of death was hypertensive cardiovascular disease.

Soon afterward, the employee’s wife sought workers’ compensation benefits from the man’s employer. In her claim, the spouse invoked § 7A of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. This section states a workplace death is prima facie evidence that a claim falls under the provisions of the Act. The man’s employer argued that § 7A did not apply to the decedent’s case and denied liability based on the “combination injury” defense included in § 1(7A).

Continue reading →