Massachusetts Workers Compensation Lawyers Blog

March 11, 2015

OSHA: Mass. Shipping Company Exposes Workers to Injury Risk

The United States Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) administration is charged with the task of investigating industrial accidents and issuing fines to employers found in violation of safe labor requirements.

According to a recent news release from OSHA’s Boston office, a nationwide shipping company has allegedly exposed workers in Massachusetts and across the country to job-related injury and death due to use of defective forklifts.

After conducting numerous safety inspections during the past few years, OSHA has determined employer left knowingly dangerous and defective forklifts in service on multiple occasions. In response to its findings, OSHA has filed a report with Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission asking commissioners to require employer to remove all damaged, defective and otherwise unsafe forklifts from their job sites across the nation.
Continue reading

March 9, 2015

OSHA: Massachusetts Contractors Exposed Fatal Fall Risk

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

According to a recent news release from the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), workers performing renovations at a now-closed dye works plant in Easthampton, Massachusetts were exposed to potentially deadly fall accidents due to employer’s failure to provide necessary protection.

OSHA reports falls are the No. 1 cause of worker deaths on construction projects, and many workers are only seconds away from a potentially deadly or disabling fall, which could easily end their careers. This not only is devastating to the injured worker, but also to his or her family, who will be left without their injured family member’s future income and may also bear the cost of a lifetime of future medical expenses.

OSHA fined these contractors over $110,000 for failing to provide adequate safety equipment. Regulators found workers on rooftops with no safety harnesses or other fall prevention devices, unguarded holes in the floor of job sites, and employees did not properly receive training to deal with these safety issues.
Continue reading

March 6, 2015

Provo City v. Utah Labor Commission: Conflicting Medical Evidence in Workers’ Compensation Cases

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Provo City v. Utah Labor Commission, an appeal from the Utah Supreme Court, involves a claimant who worked for the city as a facility service technician. He was injured in an automobile accident while driving his truck for a work-related purpose. Claimant alleged the accident caused further injury to an existing congenital spine consider. The accident caused claimant to suffer chronic pain and other disabilities, according to his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

Claimant continued working for city, but after four years, he claimed his pain and other symptoms were no longer manageable and requested reassignment to a job with less physically demanding responsibilities. After city told claimant such a position did not exist, he left his job and filed a claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits through employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier.
Continue reading

March 3, 2015

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

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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