Articles Posted in Workers’ Compensation

An employee can be injured on the job, and the injury may aggravate a pre-existing physical condition. This is called a combination injury.

The combination of physical problems may make it difficult or impossible for an employee to work. However, even when there may be no question that the new work injury made the old problem worse, the employee can still only receive benefits for the new injury that is directly related to work.

This is mandated by the Workers’ Compensation laws at Mass. G.L. ch 152 section 7 (A). This portion of the law provides that if an injury or disease that is eligible for compensation combines with a non-work-related injury or disease, even if the combination makes the work-related problem worse, the employee may only be compensated to the extent that the new problem is the major cause of the employee’s inability to work.

Continue Reading ›

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in Massachusetts, in deciding whether an injured employee should receive workers’ compensation benefits, must consider and use evidence correctly in making a decision, or the decision could be thrown out by the Reviewing Board.

A hospital employee who was injured on the job at Brigham and Women’s Hospital applied for benefits. The ALJ denied benefits on the basis that the employee’s ongoing partial disability was not caused by her work injury. The ALJ adopted in part the opinions of three physicians, interpreting their opinions to conclude that the employee was totally disabled for a period of time, continued to be partially disabled, but the partial disability was not related to her work injury.

On appeal, in a decision issued in May 2014, in the case of Mae Roscoe v Brigham and Women’s Hospital et al., Board No. 017001-11, the Reviewing Board found the ALJ had made a number of mistakes with regard to the evidence in the case and therefore overturned the ALJ’s decision.

Continue Reading ›

An administrative law judge (ALJ) at a benefits hearing has the sole authority and responsibility to determine the claimant’s credibility. He or she hears the evidence, including the testimony and cross-examination of witnesses, and makes an impartial decision based on what is presented in court. 

Ordinarily, a Reviewing Board will not disturb the credibility determinations of the hearing judge.

However, if the judge, without notice to the parties, pursues an independent investigation of the employee’s past history of workers’ compensation claims, and then relies on that history to question the employee’s claim, the Reviewing Board has the discretion to step in, overturn the ALJ’s decision, and refer the employee’s claim for reassignment and a new hearing before a different judge.

Continue Reading ›

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts granted a police officer reimbursement for the dental bills he incurred to replace teeth knocked out while he was on duty 20 years before.

The police officer was injured on the job in Lynn, Massachusetts in 1980. When he applied for reimbursement for the cost of treatment for his injuries, the city refused to indemnify him for his dental expenses. In 1984, the Superior Court rendered a judgment that he was permanently disabled, as defined by Massachusetts General Laws chapter 41, sections 100 and 100B, and entitled to compensation and benefits as a disabled police officer. However, the trial court did not order the city to pay his dental bills, ruling that the injured officer was not entitled to indemnification for the costs of treatment because the city health plan provided no dental benefits for retirees or employees.

He tried repeatedly to enforce the part of the judgment that he was disabled by an on-the-job injury and entitled to compensation as a disabled police officer. He also fought to reverse the part of the judgment that stated that his entitlement was limited to the benefits available to law enforcement retirees. Finally, in 2014, 20 years after the initial judgment, the Appeals Court ruled that he was entitled to full compensation for his work-related injuries, not limited to benefits available to retirees.

Continue Reading ›

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts recently affirmed that the Department of Industrial Accidents has jurisdiction over a claim by a person injured at work, even if the employer had required the employee to sign a contract giving up all rights under the workers’ compensation laws.

The defendant, Eastern Connection Operating, Inc., hires drivers to pick up and deliver packages throughout the Northeast.  In 2007, the plaintiff signed a contract with Eastern entitled ‘Agreement with Independent Contractor-2007,’ where the plaintiff was hired to deliver packages for Eastern.

In the contract was a provision that Eastern would not obtain workers’ compensation insurance and that the plaintiff  gave up any rights under the workers’ compensation laws in any jurisdiction where Eastern operated, including Massachusetts, but that the plaintiff maintained his rights under common law.

Continue Reading ›