Group Picture of the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Justia Lawyer Rating

by

Gales v. Sunoco & Amer. Zurich Ins., a case from the Maryland Court of Appeals, involved claimant who was injured while driving a gasoline tanker truck for his employer in February of 2010. Following the accident, employer’s insurance company compensated claimant under a workers’ compensation benefits rating of temporary total disability from February through December of 2010.

tanker-truck-reflection-395160-m.jpgClaimant requested that employer pay for additional temporary total disability benefits and for an evaluation by a pain management specialist. Employer denied employee’s claim.

At this point, employee filed a claim with the workers’ compensation commission and received an award of compensation, ordering employer pay for the additional benefits and the evaluation requested.
Continue reading

by

Gits Mfg. Co. v. Frank, a case from the Iowa Supreme Court, involved a claimant who began working for employer in 1997. She worked as a spot welder and on the assembly line. In February of 2006, claimant’s doctor diagnosed her with constrictive bronchiolitis causing pulmonary dysfunction.

chest-xray1-262068-m.jpgBoth claimant and employer stipulated that this was a work-related injury. Her doctor placed her on medical leave and recommended that she stop working for employer. Her doctor continued to treat her and concluded that she reached maximum medical improvement in March of 2009.
Continue reading

by

Earlier this year, a fire raged in the Back Bay neighborhood of Boston. The building that burned was adjacent to a location where welders were attempting to repair a section of metal railing. It was a windy March day, and sparks from the welding machine quickly caused the building next door to be engulfed in flames.

welding-1387182-m.jpgAccording to a recent news article from My Fox Boston, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the agency responsible for policing workplace safety, fined the welding company $58,000 for safety violations.

The specific violations were that the company did not move the railing to a fire safe location prior to welding on such a windy day, did not use a safety monitor to make sure that the surrounding structures were not set on fire, and failing to provide fire safety training to employees.
Continue reading

by

According to a recent news article in the Boston Globe, a cable company worker suffered a head injury while on the job. He was working on a ladder two stories above the ground when he suddenly fell. He hit a retaining wall during his two-story fall and received a serious injury.

ladder-et-sky-479619-m.jpgThe employee was rushed to a local Boston hospital following his workplace accident. His condition has not been released, and authorities do not yet know what caused the fall to occur.

As our Boston attorneys who represent clients injured on the job can discuss, one of the main differences between a workers’ compensation claim and negligence lawsuit is that the worker is not required to prove that the accident was his or her employer’s fault in order to financially recover.

In a traditional negligence lawsuit, the injured worker could only recover if he could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that someone else was at fault for the accident that caused his personal injury. Sometimes a case can be filed against the employer if the employer did not provide proper safety equipment or follow guidelines established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In some cases, there can be an action against a person who negligently caused the employee to fall. In some instances, the plaintiff may assert that the ladder or other equipment used was defective, and that defect was the reason for the accident.
Continue reading

by

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.

elephants-on-parade-2-1420924-m.jpgThe 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

by

Curtis v. Lemna, an appeal heard before the Supreme Court of Arkansas, involved a claimant who was injured in a golf cart accident at a country club. Plaintiff was employed at the same company as defendant. Both employees were similarly stationed within the company, and neither was the other’s supervisor.

golf-cart-1026602-m.jpgThe two men were attending a sales meeting at local golf course with representatives from their respective sales accounts. Defendant was driving a golf cart in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger when defendant lost control of the car and crashed into a retaining wall near hole six. Both men were thrown clear of the cart, and plaintiff injured his shoulder.

After the accident, plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation and received benefits from his employers’ insurance carrier. At this point, plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit in which he alleged that defendant’s negligence was the actual and proximate cause of his injuries. As our Boston workers’ compensation attorneys understand, an employee is normally prohibited from filing a civil lawsuit if he or she is able to recover workers’ compensation benefits after an on-the-job injury. The main exception to this rule is when the injury was caused by the negligence of a third party.
Continue reading

by

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.

1314902_medical_doctor.jpgMalcomson 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

by

According to a recent report from 7 News Boston, federal legislators are increasing reporting requirements for employers in relation to fatal on-the-job injuries.

2-annual-reports-2-1088939-m.jpgUnder the new law that takes effect on January 1, 2015, employers must make detailed reports of fatal workplace accidents to the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Under the current law, these reports were only required if three or more employees were killed or hospitalized while at work. In the case of a fatality, the report must be submitted within eight hours of the accident.

The new legislation will also require businesses of any size to file a report within 24 hours of any accidents that result in serious injuries requiring hospitalization, even if the worker survives.

Specifically, the reporting requirement defines severe, but non-fatal accidents, as those requiring hospitalization, loss of eye, or amputation. OSHA stated that a severe workplace accident is warning sign that dangerous conditions exist that may require intervention by the agency.

As our Boston work injury lawyers understand, employers are hesitant to report injuries out of fears that OSHA will shut down the company, levy significant fines, or require costly changes in operation. As we have discussed in other blog entries, employers are often concerned with their bottom line far more than workers’ safety. It should come as no real surprise that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has raised concerns about this new law.
Continue reading

by

According to a recent news report from WKBN 27 News, the United States Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found over 20 serious safety violations at an Ohio factory after an investigation relating to how a worker was crushed between two large machines last February.

230578_hospital_6.jpgIt has been reported that the worker was a full-time machine operator who was crushed between an activated transfer paddle and an electrical box. The worker suffered multiple fractures to his pelvis and was seriously injured.

OSHA officials noted workers must be aware of the hazards they face on a daily basis, and this particular employer did not consider on-the-job safety as important. The injury could have been avoided if the company had put in place sufficient protocols to protect workers from the dangers of moving machinery and properly trained employees in equipment lockout procedures during maintenance.

As our work injury lawyers in Massachusetts can explain, companies must show workers have the ability to lockout or prevent the operation of a piece of machinery while maintenance or inspections are being performed. The purpose of a lockout procedure is to prevent another employee from starting a machine while an employee is vulnerable to injury while servicing the machine.
Continue reading

Contact Information
Boston Office
1 International Pl Unit 1810
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 777-7777Fax: (617) 722-9999
Taunton Office
60 Court St
Taunton, MA 02780
By Appointment Only
Quincy Office
308 Victory Rd
Quincy, MA 02171
By Appointment Only

Worcester Office
43 Harvard St
Worcester, MA 01609
By Appointment Only
Disclaimer – The settlements above are only a sample of cases represented by our office. Each case is different and the amount of a potential resolution of your case will vary considerably depending on a substantial amount of factors. Some case results were worked in conjunction with partnering law firms.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

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 © 2025, Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design