Group Picture of the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Justia Lawyer Rating

by

Su Warren v. Williams & Parsons PC, a case from the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, involved a claimant who was injured when a car crashed into the wall directly outside of her office, causing her to be thrown across the room. She immediately felt pain in her face and hand and suffered from dizziness. Her primary care physician (PCP) noted subtle evidence of cognitive impairment and a decrease in her ability to concentrate.

1mri-head-scan-370098-m.jpgX-rays of her hand were negative for physical injuries and a head CT scan showed no abnormalities. Her doctor stated that she had nearly fully recovered but recommended continued physical therapy. After completing physical therapy, she had made a significant recovery from her injuries, according to her PCP.

Around the same time her doctor found near complete recovery, her employer fired her on grounds that her work had deteriorated beginning three months prior to the accident. She had been earning $14 per hour plus overtime during tax season.
Continue reading

by

Workers’ compensation appeals often involve extremely complex litigation to help claimants in need get appropriate benefits to which they are rightfully entitled. Benavides v. Eastern N.M. Med. Ctr., a case from the New Mexico Supreme Court, involved a claimant who was working as a registered nurse.

1006453_caution_wet_floor-sign_1.jpgClaimant slipped on a wet floor at the medical center and seriously injured her right leg, hip, lower back, and neck. She quickly applied for workers’ compensation benefits and was awarded around $580 per week as the maximum allowable benefit under a temporary total disability rating. This happened in 2006.
Continue reading

by

Burkhart v. H.J. Heinz Co., a case from the Supreme Court of Ohio, involved a plaintiff who was employed by defendant as a maintenance worker at its bottling plant from 1946 to 1986. For the first 30 years of his employment, he worked at a bottling plant, and for the last 10, he worked at another processing facility. At the bottling plant, he claims to have been exposed to asbestos from pipe insulation.

asbestos-244234-m.jpgHe was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma at the end of 2005. He filed a products liability lawsuit against several asbestos manufacturers and gave a videotaped deposition in 2007. He died that year. Following his death, his wife filed a workers’ compensation claim against defendant.
Continue reading

by

An employee was recently killed at a large Chicago-area baking company that produces many of the hot dog buns, hamburger buns and bread products consumed in the U.S.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, this worker had been employed at the company for the past six years.

gear-866269-m.jpgHe was trying to check the oil on a machine known as a bakery loader after service had been performed on the equipment. He placed his head into the gearbox area to view the oil level, but the machine guards had not been reinstalled after being serviced. A gear arm rotated without warning and struck him in the head, trapping it between the gear arm and the metal frame.

After the accident, the local coroner determined that the cause of death was blunt force trauma, and the death was accidental. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) performed a mandatory inspection and found six serious safety violations. These other violations were considered amputation hazards, and involved the tag-out and lockout procedures for various machines. A lockout system allows a worker to lock the controls of a machine when he or she is working an area that would result in injury if the machine is started by an unwitting co-worker Continue reading

by

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.

marceneiro-2-284771-m.jpgAccording 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

by

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.

bagage-belt-in-ayers-rock-airport-1444066-m.jpgOSHA 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

by

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.

915719_construction_workers_on_a_roof.jpgInspectors 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

by

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.

tree-at-the-same-time-600241-m.jpgClaimant 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

by

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.

tanker-truck-reflection-395160-m.jpgClaimant 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

by

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.

chest-xray1-262068-m.jpgBoth 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

Contact Information
Boston Office
1 International Pl Unit 1810
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 777-7777Fax: (617) 722-9999
Taunton Office
60 Court St
Taunton, MA 02780
By Appointment Only
Quincy Office
308 Victory Rd
Quincy, MA 02171
By Appointment Only

Worcester Office
43 Harvard St
Worcester, MA 01609
By Appointment Only
Disclaimer – The settlements above are only a sample of cases represented by our office. Each case is different and the amount of a potential resolution of your case will vary considerably depending on a substantial amount of factors. Some case results were worked in conjunction with partnering law firms.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design