Articles Posted in Boston Work Accidents

Many people have heard the myth about a penny dropped from the top of the Empire State Building falling with enough force to kill someone standing below.

This assertion has been debunked by Scientific American, which reports a penny would cause neither serious injury or death because it is “too small and flat to become a dangerous projectile.”

But, there are plenty of other falling objects that are potentially deadly.

Workers on construction sites face a tremendous risk of a falling object. A Boston work injury lawyer knows wearing a hard hat and following other safety precautions set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration can help to reduce the chances of a deadly incident occurring.

Sometimes, however, an object can fall from too far up or can fall onto an unprepared worker and the outcome may be tragic.
Continue reading

According to a recent article from ABC News, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is conducting an investigation into how and why a caretaker at a New England animal sanctuary was killed when trampled by an Elephant.

The retired veterinarian was working as a caretaker for two elephants when he decided to walk into their enclosure. His body was later discovered in a barn after being stepped on by one of the elephants in his care.

While it is believed that this was merely an accident, OSHA is investigating why the worker entered the elephant’s habitat. After a worker was killed at large animal sanctuary in Tennessee, that facility required protective barriers to be used at all times when interacting with the animals. Protective barriers (formally called protected-contact barriers) are large metal bars that protect the workers from being crushed while working on the elephants.

OSHA has made it clear that far too many people have been injured or killed in accidents at zoos, and OSHA is conducting an investigation into the circumstances surrounding this tragic workplace accident. The director of the of the elephant sanctuary has been quoted as saying that if workers were required to use the protective barriers and follow a rigid set of safety rules, there would be an effective way for them to interact with the elephants and provide therapy.

Others interviewed said that many of the older caretakers feel that the methods used in the past are safe, and there is no need for any additional safety precautions.

While people typically think of workers’ compensation in terms of an on-the-job injury and not an accident that involved the death of a worker, our workplace injury attorneys in Boston understand that a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits is often the appropriate remedy.
Continue reading

Our workers’ compensation attorneys in Massachusetts understand the importance of claimants seeking legal representation as early in the process as possible. While it may seem like the employer is on your side, their insurance company or the state workers’ compensation fund may be far more interested in reducing the amount of claims paid out than the well-being of a worker injured on the job.

Malcomson v. Liberty Northwest, a case argued before the Supreme Court of Montana, involved an employee who was injured while working at a pizza restaurant. Employee, a manager at the restaurant, injured her back while on the job. She sought medical treatment the day she was injured and also filed a workers’ compensation claim.

The workers’ compensation insurance company hired a registered nurse to serve as employee’s case manager and as an agent of the company. The nurse gave employee a Claimant’s Authorization form that was signed by employee in January of 2008. This form is required if employees wish to receive workers’ compensation benefits.
Continue reading

Our Boston work accident attorneys know it’s possible to secure workers’ compensation benefits for individuals who have already left a company (or were forced to quit due to the injury). In some cases, claims can be filed years after the incident, so long as the underlying illness or injury was work-related.

However, employers have been known in these situations to effectively assert the defense of voluntary workforce abandonment. Essentially, if a worker has not been employed for a period of time since the injury, the firm may argue the worker simply chose to no longer seek or retain gainful employment of his or her own volition.

The distinction between voluntary and involuntary departure is fact-intensive and often complicated. The general underlying principle is if an employee’s departure from the workforce was causally related to the injury, then it wasn’t voluntary and shouldn’t preclude the worker’s eligibility for temporary total disability benefits, granted for a disability that prevents a worker from returning to his former position of employment. Proving that will require the aid of an experienced lawyer.

A recent example of an employer asserting such a defense was seen in State ex rel. Floyd v. Formica Corp., which was appealed all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Continue reading

Ekdahl v. Indep. Sch. Dist. #213, an appeal from the Supreme Court of Minnesota, involved a relator injured while working for the respondent, an independent school district. The relator applied for permanent total disability and was awarded the workers’ compensation rating. The term “relator” is essentially the same as the term “plaintiff” in the context of this case. One distinction is that relators often sue organizations on behalf of another organization or the government in what is know as a Qui Tam lawsuit.

As your workplace injury attorney can explain, permanent total disability is a type of rating that an injured worker can be given when applying for benefits. This is one of the highest ratings for the purposes of obtaining a workers’ compensation award.

In Ekdahl, the respondent school district requested that the amount awarded to the relator be offset (reduced) because the injured worker had already received compensation under a government-service pension, and a state statute provided for any old age and survivor insurance benefits.
Continue reading

Workers’ compensation was created to provide employees with a quicker way to receive benefits after being injured on the job, while limiting the potential exposure of employers to negligence actions. As our work injury attorneys understand, the rights of employees often take a backseat to the desire for companies to reduce the cost of their insurance coverage, and you will have to fight for a fair and just recovery.

A recent article discusses how one Miami judge has ruled that state legislatures had reduced medical care and lost wage benefits to the level where workers who have been injured on the job are being deprived of fundamental rights. The judge held that the state law does not provide for benefits commensurate with the current high cost of medical care and does not provide workers with enough money to compensate them for lost wages.

The judge also noted that this workers’ compensation system was not meaningful enough to injured workers to justify the denial of their right to file a civil lawsuit. This speaks to the one recovery rule that prohibits a worker from filing a civil lawsuit if they are entitled to collect workers’ compensation. There are some exceptions to the rule barring a civil suit, if the employer engaged in serious misconduct, or if a third party is also liable for the on-the-job injury. We see this a lot in Boston workers’ compensation cases when an at-fault driver in a car accident injures an employee.
Continue reading

Boston Workers’ compensation lawyers recognize some on-the-job injuries do not become apparent until much later in one’s life. If a work-related injury becomes apparent after one’s employment has been terminated, he or she may still be entitled to benefits. There may, however, be more work required to prove worker was injured on the job.

Central OH Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs involved an employee who worked at an above-ground coalmine from 1945 until he was laid off in 1999. While he never worked underground, he held many different jobs at above-ground strip mines, including as a heavy equipment operator.

There is no doubt that he was exposed to coal dust on a daily basis at the same levels that he would have been at an underground mine. In 1995, he was diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), which is also known by coalminers as “black lung.” He had also been a smoker for nearly 40 years, consuming more than a pack each day. The administrative law judge (ALJ) at his workers’ compensation hearing estimated that he smoked the equivalent of 57 “pack years” of cigarettes based, on the amount he smoked.

In 2001, he applied to get his job back, but was not hired because he couldn’t pass the required physical exam. The company believed that, even with his oxygen tank, he could not withstand the harsh environment of working at a coal mine.
Continue reading

Our workplace accident attorneys understand some employers take shortcuts when it comes to on-the-job safety. For employees working closely with heavy equipment, the result can be devastating.

LeFiell Mfg. v. Super. Ct., an appeal before the California Court of Appeals, involved a worker who was injured while operating a swaging machine. In rendering its opinion, the court wrote at great length about what a swaging machine is and how it works.

Essentially, a swaging machine is designed to take large diameter tubes and turn them into small diameter tubes. It is basically crimps a pipe fitting over another pipe fitting. You could use a swaging machine to attach the end to a hose, so that it could be connected to a faucet or another hose. The way the machine works is that a series of hammers compresses around the tube that is being crimped. The hammers are part of dye assembly that can be changed to match the diameter of the pipe or tube being reduced.
Continue reading