Articles Posted in Massachusetts Work Accident

On-the-job injuries are not only traumatic, they can result in lifelong debilitation or even death. While civil negligence lawsuits are generally not permitted in these instances, workers and their survivors may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.

Employers have a duty to maintain safe working environments for employees, and when they do not, there needs to be accountability.

According to the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a New England manufacturer of stairs and cabinets has been fined $62,000 for violations involving machinery, dangerous chemicals and fire hazards after a safety investigation launched after a worker lost two fingers in an unsafe machine on which he was working.

OSHA noted that if the machine had properly guarded, worker would not have lost his fingers. OSHA discovered numerous additional hazards while investigating this incident.

A dust collection system, crucial in an area where sawing and drilling of wood occurs, lacked a required spark detector designed to prevent heated metal from entering the system and causing an explosion. Investigators also found improper disposal of flammable rags and spray booths lines with layers of old flammable solvent. Plus, there was flammable material in and around electric outlets, elevated workstations without safety railings, too few emergency exits, no emergency showers in the event of chemical exposure, insufficient protective gear and training and other serious violations.
Continue reading

It is unfortunate that some employers have such little regard for workers’ safety that they fail to make necessary corrections even after being fined for safety violations. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration has issued a Regional News Release detailing how a Massachusetts package handling facility has been cited repeatedly for violations of failing to properly guard a machine. Most recently, the fine was $44,000.

OSHA inspectors discovered that a conveyor belt’s rotating parts were not properly guarded to prevent the hands and fingers of workers from getting caught in the mechanism. Conditions similar to this have been known to cause pinched hands and fingers, crushed or amputated hands and fingers, contusions and nerve damage. The law requires these conveyor belt systems be properly guarded so no part of an employee’s body can come into contact with moving machinery.

OSHA officials were particularly concerned with these violations because this same employer had been cited on two previous occasions for the same hazard in the past four years. OSHA investigators say that especially in the case of large employer with multiple locations, it is essential that proper machine guarding is put in place and inspected to make sure it is working properly. The fact that this was a repeat violation justified a higher penalty. It should be noted that employer has an opportunity to challenge these allegations through an informal meeting or formal hearing process.
Continue reading

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.

The 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

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.

The 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

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.

It 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

Navistar, Inc. v. Forester, an appeal heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, involved a claimant who was employed at a coalmine from 1970 to 1975. His job responsibilities included being a safety inspector, dust sampler, and underground foreman. After leaving the company in 1975, he became a federal coalmine inspector until 1991.

In 1991, he stopped working in the mines due a knee injury. The following year, he was found to be totally disabled due to respiratory problems. In 2008, after receiving workers’ compensation benefits for years from the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act (FECA), he applied for benefits from the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA) fund. Throughout out his time on the job, he was constantly exposed to coal dust.

According to court records, filing a BLBA claim should not preclude him from continuing to receive workers’ compensation benefits from FECA. However, any BLBA award would need to be offset by the amount received from BLBA.
Continue reading

According to a recent article from Cape Cod Online, an employee of a tree company suffered a serious on-the-job injury. He was working on or around a wood chipper. After tree company workers remove dead limbs from trees, they will typically use a large wood chipper to shred the wood for easy removal from the job site.

Witnesses report that a large piece of wood was kicked out of the chipper and hit the worker in the back. The piece of wood was reported to approximately two feet long and a foot wide.

Due to the seriousness of the injury, the worker was flown by medevac helicopter to a trauma center in Boston. There have been no reports as of yet about the injured worker’s condition from the hospital, but it is likely life-threatening, based on the need to have him airlifted to Boston. Medevac helicopters are normally only used in cases of severe injury.

Our workplace accident lawyers know that some jobs are inherently more dangerous than others. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) considers tree trimming one of the more dangerous jobs and states that workers face injury from obvious sources, like falls, but also from hazardous electrical lines, heavy equipment, noise, chainsaws, ladders, and many other dangers. OSHA specifically lists wood chippers as a common hazard to tree trimmers.
Continue reading

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

In Massachusetts, as in almost all other states, when a worker is injured during their commute to work, those injuries are not considered eligible for workers’ compensation benefits.

Boston workers’ compensation lawyers note this “coming-and-going rule” can be applicable even when someone must use their vehicle as part of their job.

And yet, one of the most common claims for benefits stem from work-related auto accidents. Many of these cases are successful. What is key to prove is that the crash occurred in the course of one’s employment. Often, the facts are weighed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the employee can be compensated for those injuries.
Continue reading