Massachusetts Workers Compensation Lawyers Blog

November 4, 2014

On Machine Guarding Hazards and Workers’ Compensation in Massachusetts

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

November 1, 2014

OSHA Fines New England Roofing Contractor

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Construction jobs are one of the more dangerous occupations, and being a roofer is particularly hazardous. According to a recent news release from the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), one New England-based roofing contractor was fined $70,000 for exposing employees to unnecessary and potentially fatal fall risks.

Inspectors found employees working on top of a two-story residential roof without fall protection equipment. According to federal regulations, roofing workers are to be provided with fall protection equipment. In this case, they were without such safety equipment due to a deliberate failure on behalf of the employer.

OSHA reported some workers did not have any fall protection equipment and others were provided with harnesses, but were not tied-off to an independent anchorage point in a way that would have prevented a fatal fall. Workers were also given a ladder with broken rungs to access the roof and were not properly trained to recognize these hazards and take adequate steps to prevent injuries.
Continue reading

October 28, 2014

Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Ass’n of Mid-Ohio: On Defining On-The-Job in Workers’ Compensation Cases

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Workers’ compensation claims that involve an on-the-job injury that occurred while driving in a vehicle tend to involve more complex litigation. In Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Ass’n of Mid-Ohio, claimant was a nurse who worked for an employer that provided in-home healthcare to patients.

Claimant began working for employer in November of 2006. On a typical workday, claimant would see multiple patients in their respective homes. She drove her personal vehicle when going to see her clients. She would stop in the office to pick up supplies, read her mail, and attend company meetings.

When she worked on the weekends, she was given paid mileage from her home to her first patient, driving to additional patients’ homes, and for her ride home after work. The company would subtract 24 miles and 30 minutes from each day’s earnings to account for the time spent driving to the office, even if she did not actually go to the office.
Continue reading

October 26, 2014

Gales v. Sunoco & Amer. Zurich Ins: Civil Trials in Workers’ Compensation Cases

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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.

Claimant 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

October 21, 2014

Gits Mfg. Co. v. Frank: On Challenging a Workers’ Compensation Disability Rating

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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.

Both 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

October 17, 2014

OSHA Fines Employer in Deadly Massachusetts Workplace Accident

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the federal agency that monitors and enforces adherence to worker safety regulations.

According to a recent news article in the

October 15, 2014

OSHA Fines Welding Company in Connection with Deadly Boston Fire

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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.

According 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

October 10, 2014

Boston Worker Injured in Ladder Fall

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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

October 8, 2014

Elephant Caretaker Dies in New England Zoo

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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.

The 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

October 5, 2014

Curtis v. Lemna: On the One Recovery Rule in Workers’ Compensation Actions

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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