Massachusetts Workers Compensation Lawyers Blog

March 3, 2015

Shepard v. Dept. of Corrections: Control of Treatment in Workers’ Compensation Cases

Shepard v. Dept. of Corrections is a workers’ compensation appeal from the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

In 2005, claimant was working for the state department of corrections when she injured herself.

Workers’ compensation commission for the state determined claimant injured her neck, lower back, both shoulders, and her left arm. Commissioners further found she suffered a permanent partial disability (PPD). Commissioners ordered her employer or its insurance carrier to pay for reasonably necessary future medical expenses, limited to prescription medications and four follow-up monitoring visits per year with her doctor listed on her application for workers’ compensation benefits.

The commission’s order stated either party could move for a modification at any time with a showing of good cause, and there was no limit on which medications her doctor could prescribe for her treatment. Commissioners also ordered employer or its insurance company to pay any reasonable medical expenses claimant had already incurred.
Continue reading

February 28, 2015

Armstrong v. State: Maximum Medical Improvement in Workers’ Compensation Cases

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Armstrong v. State, an appeal from the Supreme Court of Nebraska, involved claimant who injured herself while working as a staff nurse at a veteran’s hospital. Both claimant and her employer stipulated (formally agreed) she tore a hole in the rotator cuff of her right shoulder to a severity entitling her to compensation for her on-the-job injury.

Her employer paid her temporary total disability (TTD) workers’ compensation benefits from May 2010 to April 2010. At this point, doctors opined she had reached her maximum medical improvement (MMI).

MMI means doctors have done all they can feasibly do to improve a patient’s condition, and there is nothing else worth doing to improve his or her condition. Essentially, a doctor is saying he or she has done everything that could be done, and it’s not worth trying anything else in terms of cost and patient discomfort.
Continue reading

February 25, 2015

New Non-Surgical Treatment for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Millions of Americans deal with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) on a regular basis. CTS is a type of repetitive stress injury (RSI) often caused by making repetitive movements such as working at a computer all day or working in a factory. It can also be caused by working in a supermarket, placing groceries on the shelves or operating a cash register.

Many people consider carpal tunnel syndrome as something you just have to deal with as part of living and working in our modern world. What many people don’t realize is CTS is often a work-related injury, which may qualify the injured employee for workers’ compensation benefits. These benefits can include past medical bills, future medical bills, and lost wages from time taken off work to seek treatment and deal with pain.

You could just take over-the-counter painkillers, or buy an arm wrap from a local drug store, and try to deal with the pain, but it will probably not get better on its own. It will probably get worse over time. This is because it is a degenerative condition caused by pressure being placed on the carpal tunnel. This pressure can pinch the bundle of nerves and tendons that controls movement in all parts of the hand. Pain can also radiate up the arm to the patient’s neck and shoulders.
Continue reading

February 22, 2015

L & L Enterprises v. Arellano: Workers’ Compensation and Undocumented Workers

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

L & L Enterprises v. Arellano, an appeal from the Supreme Court of Wyoming, involved claimant who was injured on the job. After submitting a workers’ compensation claim, it was determined he was an undocumented worker and, trial court ruled, not entitled to benefits. His application for workers’ compensation was denied and he appealed this decision.

On appeal, the court looked at the issue of whether he qualified as an employee under the state statute for the purposes of workers’ compensation eligibility. It should be noted in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as our Boston workers’ compensation attorneys can explain, being an undocumented worker is not a bar to receiving an award an award for workers’ compensation benefits.

The Massachusetts case involved a construction laborer who was severely injured when he fell into a deep hole while on the job. He was an undocumented worker. When his employer denied his application for workers’ compensation benefits, he filed a claim with the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA). An administrative law judge determined injured worker was eligible for workers’ compensation, despite his immigration status, and awarded his benefits, including back pay.

Employer appealed, based upon a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case holding undocumented workers were not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. DIA reaffirmed its earlier decision, citing U.S. Supreme Court did not preclude a Massachusetts agency from concluding employer and employee had entered into an enforceable contract, which upon an on-the-job injury, required payment of workers’ compensation benefits.
Continue reading

February 19, 2015

Nealy v. City of Santa Monica: Retaliatory Termination and Workers’ Compensation

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, an appeal from the Court of Appeal for the State of California, involved a recycling worker who was injured on the job. Claimant injured his right knee while he was moving a bin full of food waste in 2003. A treating physician determined he was temporarily disabled as a result of his knee injury. He underwent two operations on his knee in 2003 and 2004. His temporary disability rating was extended until May 2005, when his doctor cleared him to return to light duty.

His restrictions were he could not move large trash bins that weighed 750 pounds when empty and as much as 1,200 pounds when full of garbage. In 2005, the city accommodations committee convened to make reasonable accommodations for claimant, due to his light work status.
Continue reading

February 16, 2015

Central Flying Serv. Inc. v. Circuit Court: Workers’ Compensation and Wrongful Death

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Central Flying Serv. Inc. v. Circuit Court, an appeal from the Supreme Court of Arkansas, involved claimant who was killed in a plane crash. Claimant was a licensed pilot employed by an airline. He was to fly from Little Rock, Arkansas to Monroe, Louisiana, pick up passengers, and fly them to Beaumont, Texas.

On his flight from Louisiana to Texas, his plane crashed, and claimant and all three passengers were killed. Claimant’s estate filed a wrongful death civil action against employer on grounds he was not trained or certified to fly the particular aircraft he was flying the day of his crash. The aircraft involved in the deadly crash was a Beechcraft “Bonanza” A 36.
Continue reading

February 10, 2015

Barnes v. Charter 1 Realty – Idiopathic Versus Unexplained Injuries

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

One of the cornerstones of Massachusetts workers’ compensation law is that in order to be compensable, an injury or condition must arise out of and in the course of one’s employment.

That means there must be some causal link between one’s work and injuries.

Courts have generally held that idiopathic injuries should not be considered compensable. However, there is often dispute about what exactly it means for an injury to be “idiopathic,” and courts have struggled to reach a consensus about the exact test that should be applied. Some states consider any unexplainable injury to be idiopathic. Others, however, make the distinction that idiopathic doesn’t necessarily mean “unexplainable,” but rather an injury brought on by a purely personal condition.
Continue reading

February 5, 2015

Demetres v. East West Construction – Exclusive Remedy Underscored in Near-Fatal Work Accident

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In Massachusetts, workers’ compensation is considered the exclusive remedy against employers (and their agents) by a worker who is injured on-the-job.

There are a few rare exceptions that involve intentional injuries resulting from willful and serious misconduct. In those instances, there is a doubling of benefits. However, approval of an exception in these cases is rare. The only other option for additional compensation – and it will depend on the circumstances of the case – is third-party litigation.

Third party litigation stemming from a work-injury can be pursued if another person or entity aside from the employer and/or its agents played a significant role in causing the worker’s injuries. There are several differences between workers’ compensation benefits and third-party litigation, the most obvious being one needn’t prove negligence in workers’ compensation cases, while the burden of proof requires such a finding in third-party litigation. Another difference is that while workers’ compensation tends to be awarded faster, it’s also often markedly less than one might receive in a successful personal injury lawsuit. That’s why those severely injured may find it worthwhile to pursue such a claim, even if it takes some time to wind its way through the system.
Continue reading

February 1, 2015

Moore v. K-Mart – Occupational Illness and Reimbursement for Medical Costs

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The concept of workers’ compensation benefits is most often associated with work-related injuries. But occupational illness are equally as pervasive and can be just as serious.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates between 26,000 and 72,000 deaths occur annually in the U.S. as the result of occupational diseases. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates approximately 300,000 new work-related illnesses occur annually. These run the gamut, from occupational cancers like mesothelioma to work-related heart disease to negative impacts on reproductive health.

Establishing a link between a worker’s condition and his or her job can be challenging, particularly when there is a period of latency between the exposure to illness-causing agents and development of the disease. But making this connection is critical to ensuring the person affected can obtain workers’ compensation benefits.
Continue reading

January 24, 2015

Elevator Mechanic Killed when Falling Down Shaft

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

According to a recent report from NY1, an elevator mechanic fell to his death while on the job. He was working in a luxury tower building on the Upper West Side in New York at the time of fatal workplace accident.

One resident interviewed couldn’t believe what happened as she had just spoken with decedent prior to the tragic work-related fall accident. Another resident said they were headed to the lobby to leave the building and saw chaos as the building was filled with police and rescue workers and the elevator shaft was locked open.

Police say victim was pinned between two elevators, one of which came down directly on top of him. He was crushed when the elevator hit him and pronounced dead on the scene. When emergency personal first arrived, victim was unconscious and not responsive. The workplace accident occurred just before noon.
Continue reading