Massachusetts Workers Compensation Lawyers Blog

August 21, 2014

Central OH Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp.: Seeking Benefits from Ex-Employer

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

August 18, 2014

LeFiell Mfg. v. Super. Ct.: Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity and Rare Exception

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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

August 15, 2014

State Accident Fund v. SC Second Injury Fund

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our work injury lawyers understand that preexisting conditions that are exacerbated by an on-the-job injury may require additional litigation.

State Accident Fund v. SC Second Injury Fund, an appeal argued in the South Carolina Supreme Court, involved a police officer who injured his knee while on the job. The claimant was treating his knee with non-surgical options, including injections of corticosteroids. He reached his maximum medical improvement (MMI) and was given a permanent disability rating of approximately 30 percent.

An MMI means that doctors have done everything feasible to treat an injury, and the cost of any additional treatment will outweigh any potential benefit. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Department of Industrial Accidents has created a guide for injured employees that explains this and other terms used.
Continue reading

August 12, 2014

Harris v. Millennium Hotel: Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Same Sex Couples

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Harris v. Millennium Hotel involved a worker who was shot and killed while working at a hotel in Alaska. The employer did not deny that the death occurred in the course of the worker’s employment, but when her spouse filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, the employer denied the claim on grounds that they never received any proof that the deceased worker was legally married to the claimant.

As our workplace injury attorneys can explain, when a worker dies on the job, his or her surviving spouse may be eligible to receive workers’ compensation death benefits. This may also have an effect on your ability to file a civil negligence lawsuit.

In Harris, the claimant filed a notice that she was filing a challenge to the constitutionality of the state workers’ compensation statute on grounds that it was discriminatory against same sex couples who were not allowed to marry under state law.

The claimant submitted evidence to show that the couple had lived to together for many years and lived in every way as married couple, including becoming financially interdependent. The workers’ compensation board affirmed the denial of her right to death benefits, due to fact that they were not legally married, and could not have been legally married under state law. The board had no authority to rule on the constitutionality of the statute and chose not to do so.
Continue reading

August 11, 2014

Stevens v. S.T. Servs.: A Petition to Terminate Disability Payments

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Stevens v. S.T. Servs., an appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court, involved a claimant who began working at liquid storage facility in the late 1970s. In the mid-1980s, the claimant injured both shoulders and the year after his injury, his employer terminated his services.

For the next seven years after his termination, surgeons performed multiple operations on the claimant’s shoulders. During that period, the claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) awarded him benefits under a Temporary Total Disability (TTD) rating.

As your workers’ compensation lawyer can explain, a TTD rating is one of several classifications for benefits under a program administered by the Executive Office for Workforce Development for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In Stevens, the parties entered into a settlement in the mid-1990s, whereby the claimant was to be awarded a disability rating of permanent and temporary total disability and found unfit for any type of employment.

Several years later, the claimant moved to Alaska and became a licensed plumber. He could not lift anything, but served as a consultant about plumbing issues. Eventually, he was offered a job as a consultant at a big box home improvement store, where he earned about $25 per hour.

He needed to return to Minnesota to undergo a medical procedure on his shoulders, and, when he was there, he had to meet with an investigator from the workers’ compensation insurance carrier. He disclosed his new job to the investigator. There was never any allegation that he attempted to commit any type of fraud with respect to his disability rating.
Continue reading

August 8, 2014

Snowboard Park Owner Fined for Not Maintaining Workers’ Compensation Insurance for Employees

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Most employers are required to carry workers’ compensation insurance under the law. Workers’ compensation is a program aimed at being a compromise between the needs of injured workers and employers. The program is designed so that workers with on-the-job injuries can get the financial compensation they deserve fast, while at the same time, protecting the employer from having to pay out large settlements that were not figured in their financial plans.

The workers’ compensation program was designed to cover not only medical bills, but also lost wages for workers who were injured on the job. In exchange for the ability to file a workers’ compensation claim, workers are precluded from filing a separate civil action in most situations. This is the benefit to the employer. In reality, many employers see a mandate to carry workers’ compensation coverage as a great compromise, and a few of them will do whatever they can to keeps costs down.

Our work injury lawyers understand how important it is to get your workers’ compensation benefits as soon as possible. Your family depends on your income and any unnecessary wait can be detrimental.
Continue reading

August 4, 2014

Ohio Settles Lawsuit over Workers’ Compensation Premiums

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our workplace injury attorneys understand that employers are interested in paying as little as possible for workers’ compensation insurance premiums.

According to a recent article in the Columbus Dispatch, the State of Ohio settled a lawsuit that had been going on for years over allegations that hundreds of thousands of employers were being overcharged for workers’ compensation insurance premiums.

According to reports, the state agreed to create a $420 million fund to pay claims from employers who were overcharged for workers’ compensation premiums between 2009 and 2011. This was slightly less than half of the $860 million that the judge ordered the state to repay. The state initially appealed this order, and the Court of Appeals reduced the amount to $670 million. A settlement was reached, and both sides are reported as being happy with the settlement agreement.

Since this case began, there have been major changes made to the state’s workers’ compensation program, including improvements in accounting methods and additional efforts to reduce work place accidents.
Continue reading

August 1, 2014

Elms v. Renewal by Anderson: Common Law Employee Versus Independent Contractor Status

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our workplace accident lawyers understand that employers may try to allege that their workers are independent contractors in order to avoid paying benefits.

In Elms v. Renewal by Anderson, a case from the Maryland Court of Appeals, the court decided on issues pertaining to whether an injured worker was an employee of the defendant or an independent contractor.

According to the record, the plaintiff was a licensed home improvement contractor. He was the owner and operator of a home improvement business. Some of the services he provided were the installation and restoration of windows and doors and general carpentry.
In the years before doing with business with the defendant, the plaintiff maintained a workers’ compensation insurance policy for business. However, the plaintiff was never a beneficiary of the plan, nor was any of his other employees. The only one on the plan was the plaintiff’s son.
Continue reading

July 27, 2014

OSHA Focuses on Increased Worker Safety at Demolition Sites

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our workplace injury lawyers understand that in some jobs, employers must work harder to prevent on-the-job injuries.

The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is increasing efforts to keep demolition employees safe on the job. While demolition is generally considered an inherently dangerous occupation, there are number of workplace injuries and deaths that OSHA says could be prevented with proper training and concern for workers’ safety.

One of the major causes of these workplace injuries comes from having workers demolish a building without first conducting an engineering survey to gain a full understanding of the condition of the structure. Without such a survey, demolition companies will not know how walls and other structures will respond to the demolition process. The unexpected collapse of adjacent structures is a major cause of injuries to workers.
Continue reading

July 22, 2014

Increased Fines for Employers Who Do Not Maintain Workers’ Compensation Coverage

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our work injury attorneys understand that cases where employers have not complied with requirements to obtain coverage may require additional litigation.

In a recent article, the News Virginian is reporting a substantial increase in the penalties faced by employers who do not maintain workers’ compensation coverage from their employees.

Workers’ compensation insurance has often been presented as a compromise aimed at striking a fair balance between the needs of workers and the needs of employers. Under the workers’ compensation plan, an employee has a means to quickly obtain compensation for an on-the-job injury without the need to file a civil lawsuit against their employer.
Continue reading