Meeting with a Brockton personal injury lawyer for your free consultation is a crucial opportunity to assess whether they’re the right fit for your case. To make the most of this initial meeting, asking the right questions is essential. These inquiries will help you understand the lawyer’s experience, approach, and how they can effectively advocate for your interests. We’ll explore the top questions you should ask during your free consultation to ensure you make an informed decision and secure the best legal representation for your personal injury claim.

Question One: Experience and Expertise

When evaluating a Cape Cod personal injury lawyer, understanding their experience and expertise is essential. Ask about their track record with similar cases, including their success rate and years of practice. Inquire about their familiarity with local laws in Brockton, MA, and their approach to handling cases. A lawyer’s background and specialization can significantly influence the outcome of your claim, so ensure they have the relevant experience to represent your interests effectively.

Question Two: The Legal Process

During your consultation, ask the Brockton personal injury lawyer how they will manage your case through the legal process. Request details on the steps involved, the estimated timeline, and how they will keep you updated. Understanding their approach to deadlines, evidence, and court proceedings will help you gauge their ability to handle your case.

Question Three: Communicataion

Inquiring about communication is crucial during your consultation. Ask how frequently you will receive updates on your case and what your preferred methods of communication are. Understanding their process for keeping clients informed—whether through calls, emails, or meetings—ensures you stay involved and aware of your case’s progress. Effective communication is vital to a smooth legal process and a strong lawyer-client relationship with your personal injury lawyer, Cape Cod.

Question Four: Legal Fees

It’s important to discuss the lawyer’s fees and how they are structured during your consultation. Ask about their billing methods, whether they work on a contingency fee basis, and if you might incur additional costs. Understanding these details upfront ensures there are no surprises and helps you evaluate whether the services of a Brockton personal injury lawyer fit within your budget.

Making the Most of Your Consultation: Final Tips

Inquiring about overall experience, communication style, and fee structures can help you choose the best Brockton personal injury lawyer for your case. Use the opportunity to assess whether the lawyer aligns with your needs and can effectively advocate for your interests. Schedule your consultation with The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, who will answer all your questions and adequately represent your claim.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked at the defendant’s law firm. She was his only employee at first, but over time he added more members to his team. He belittled and verbally attacked the plaintiff on a frequent basis, and screamed and shouted in her face.

It is reported that the plaintiff eventually stopped working for the defendant. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against him, alleging he intentionally caused emotional distress and asserting other claims. The defendant moved for the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, on the grounds that that they were barred by the Act’s exclusivity provision. His motion was denied and the case was tried. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant appealed. Employer Liability for Intentional Torts

Unless an employee waives their right to workers’ compensation benefits under the Act when they are hired, the Act supersedes common law causes of action for injuries incurred during the course of employment. As a result, claims for negligence, gross negligence, deliberate and wanton conduct, and recklessness against an employer are often barred by the exclusivity rule. There are, however, exceptions to the general rule.

The exclusivity proviso, in particular, will not exclude a lawsuit against an employer or coworker who commits an intentional tort that is not in the employer’s best interests or within the scope of employment. Here, the trial court determined that the plaintiff’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress fell under the exception to the exclusivity rule, stating that being subjected to such intentional torts was not an accepted risk of conducting business. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, finding the trial court’s reasoning to be valid.

Meet with a Dedicated Massachusetts Attorney to Assess Your Rights

While the exclusivity provision of the Act bars most claims against employers, there are exceptions to the rule. If you suffered personal injuries due to the intentional acts of your employer, you may be owed compensation and it is smart for you to meet with an attorney to assess their rights. The dedicated lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, are adept at handling complex personal injury matters, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf, to provide you with a strong chance of favorable outcome. You can reach us through our online form or by calling us at 888-262-6664 to set up a conference.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was employed as a machinist for a company that was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the defendant. She suffered injuries while using a machine and subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, asserting claims of negligence and negligent supervision and averring that it failed to provide a safe workplace, reasonably supervise the worksite, or properly train its employees.

Allegedly, the defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that it was immune from civil liability under the exclusivity provisions of the Massachusetts Worker’s Compensation Act (the Act). The court denied the defendant’s motion, and it appealed. Determining Whether an Action is Barred by the Exclusivity Provision of the Act

The Act’s exclusivity provision bars an employee from recovering workers’ compensation benefits and then suing her employer to recover damages for an injury covered by the Act. To determine whether a personal injury action is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act, a court will consider whether the employer is an insured party liable for the payment of compensation benefits and whether the employer directly employs the employee.

In the subject case, the appellate court explained that, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the plaintiff did not bear the burden of proving that the defendant was not her direct employer in response to the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Instead, the defendant was required to establish it was her direct employer.

Further, the appellate court disagreed with the defendant’s assertion that the facts in the plaintiff’s complaint implied that the defendant was her direct employer, noting that assessing whether an employer-employee exists is a fact-intensive inquiry. Based on the foregoing, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Trusted Massachusetts Attorney

People who suffer bodily harm due to the negligence of others are often entitled to damages, but there may be statutory limitations that preclude them from pursuing claims against certain parties. If you suffered harm due to a defective product, you should meet with an attorney to discuss what claims you may be able to pursue. The Cape Cod lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III can advise you of your rights and help you to seek any damages you may be owed. You can contact us via the form online or at 888-262-6664 to set up a conference.

The question of whether the claimant can return to work involves more than the issue of whether the injured individual can go back to the same job that he or she held at the time of the event giving rise to his or her permanent physical impairment. Rather, the question is whether he or she can return to any type of job at all – even one that he or she has never done before.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that a person who has done nothing but hard physical labor will be expected to shift into a desk job for which he lacks the requisite education and training. These matters, too, are taken into consideration. A recent case involved a related question, i.e. whether a skilled worker was totally disabled if he could still perform low-paying unskilled work.

Facts of the Case

In a workers’ compensation case recently reviewed by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the claimant was working as an ironworker when he suffered a permanently disabling injury to his back and shoulder. He filed a claim against his public entity employer, seeking benefits under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. The matter proceeded to a hearing in front of a Department of Industrial Accidents administrative law judge, who awarded permanent partial disability benefits to the claimant. The claimant appealed his case to the Department’s reviewing board. After the board affirmed the administrative law judge, the claimant sought further review.

The Holding in the Case

The appeals court affirmed the decisions of the Department, thereby rejecting the claimant’s argument that he should have been awarded permanent total, rather than permanent partial, disability payments. The court so held because it agreed with the lower tribunals’ holdings that, because the plaintiff was physically capable of holding down a minimum wage job despite his work-related injuries, he was not totally disabled from work. While the court was “not unsympathetic” to the claimant’s argument that taking the type of low-wage, retail job suited to his physical limitations would be “so demeaning” as to not be considered in deciding whether the claimant was permanently disabled, the claimant’s position was, ultimately, unavailing.

In so holding, the court referenced prior case law to the effect that a worker was permanently disabled if the only work that he or she could do was of an insubstantial or merely trifling variety but went on to state that the work for which the claimant was qualified did not fall into this category. While the claimant might not have been willing to accept such a job given his many years of experience as a higher paid, skilled ironwork, the fact remained that a “fair portion of the population” held down minimum wage retail jobs.

If You Have Been Hurt on the Job in the Cape Cod Area

If you have been hurt at work and need to speak to a helpful Cape Cod workers’ compensation attorney, please contact the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664. Alternatively, you can contact us through this website. Please remember that there are deadlines for certain procedural matters in workers’ compensation cases, so it is important to speak to legal counsel as soon as possible after an accident or work-related illness. Our office does not charge an attorney fee until your case is completed, so please do not allow the financial concerns to delay this important consultation.

In order to receive temporary total disability benefits, the employee must be able to show that he or she suffered a total incapacity for work during the relevant time period. For employees who qualify, the employer (typically through its workers’ compensation insurance company) is obligated to pay the employee a benefit equal to 60% of his or her average weekly wage.

Of course, such payments are subject to minimums and maximums, and there is a time limit on the receipt of such payments. Under the current statutory scheme, an employee may not receive more than 156 weeks of temporary total disability payments.

Facts of the Case

In a recent, unreported workers’ compensation case, the plaintiff was a maintenance worker whose “heavy manual labor” job required him to sometimes lift up to 200 pounds. In 2017, he suffered a work-related injury to his hip and lower back. Thereafter, he attempted to return to work on multiple occasions but was ultimately advised to go home because he could not complete the tasks that had been assigned to him. The plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits, and a hearing was held in 2018. Both the plaintiff and the defendant employer appealed the decision of that hearing. After a second hearing and an appeal, the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents summarily affirmed the administrative judge’s order terminating the employee’s temporary total benefits as of a certain date in 2018 and crediting the insurer for overpayments made thereafter.

The Appellate Court’s Ruling

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the reviewing board’s decision. Although the plaintiff argued that the lower tribunal had erred in applying a heightened standard of causation and with regard to certain evidentiary rulings regarding a physician’s report and a physician’s testimony, the appeals court agreed with the employer that the correct decision had been made in the court below. In so holding, the court pointed out that it was only allowed to reverse a reviewing board’s order when an error law had been made or a decision was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise “not in accordance with law.”

Here, although there were certain conflicts in the evidence, the administrative law judge’s reconciliation of those conflicts was within the bounds of his authority. The court also rejected the employee’s assertion that the judge had improperly acted as a “silent witness” via a comment about the approximate weight of an object that the plaintiff had been filmed carrying in a surveillance video. The reviewing court noted that the administrative law judge’s comment was consistent with his role in determining the credibility of witnesses (including the plaintiff, who stated that the object weighed only four pounds.)

Contact a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney

If you have questions about what to do following an on-the-job accident, the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III can help. To schedule a free consultation regarding your case, please call us at 888-262-6664 or use the contact form on this website. Please remember that all injury claims, including those arising from workplace accidents, are subject to time limits, so it is extremely important to act promptly in asserting your legal rights.

Ideally, the employee’s medical expenses would be paid in the regular course of business following his or her accident or illness, so long as certain conditions were met (such as seeing a doctor who was approved by the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier). Sometimes, however, this does not happen, and the employee must seek assistance from the court.

Even if the workers’ compensation insurance company initially refused to pay the injured worker’s medical expenses, the court may order the company to pay such expenses, either directly to the medical providers or as reimbursement to the worker (or, sometimes, to a health insurance company that paid the expenses on the worker’s behalf). Of course, there are sometimes situations in which the court finds that the workers’ compensation insurance company was not obligated to make such payments.

Facts of the Case

The claimant in a case recently considered on appeal by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was a man who was injured on the job. He sought to be reimbursed for nearly $25,000 of what he claimed was “necessary and reasonable” medical expenses in the form of medical marijuana. According to the claimant, he needed the medical marijuana because of chronic pain resulting from two on-the-job injuries (one in 2010 and one in 2012). The matter was first presented to an administrative law judge, who denied the claimant’s request for reimbursement. The reviewing board of the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents affirmed the administrative law judge’s denial of the claim on the basis that, because marijuana was an illicit substance under federal law, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts lacked the authority to order the defendant workers’ compensation insurance carrier to pay the claimant’s medical marijuana expenses. The claimant appealed.

Decision of the Supreme Judicial Court

The court affirmed the lower tribunal’s decision, resolving the issue in favor of the workers’ compensation insurance company. Although the administrative law judge and the reviewing board had based their decisions largely on the pre-emption of federal law, the supreme judicial court found support for its decision in the Commonwealth’s medical marijuana act. In denying the employee’s claim for reimbursement of the medical marijuana expense, the court pointed out a provision to the effect that nothing in the law required any health insurance provider to reimburse any person for the expense of medical usage of marijuana (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94I, § 6 (i)). Although the statute addressed health insurers rather than workers’ compensation insurers, the court found that the result was the same. According to the court, “it [was] one thing” to authorize the use of a substance that was illegal under federal law but “quite another” to require unwilling third parties to pay for such use and to risk prosecution as a result.

Contact a Cape Cod Workers’ Compensation Lawyer About Your Injury

If you have been hurt at work and have questions about the responsibilities that your employer and its workers’ compensation company have toward you, you need to speak to an attorney who is experienced in these types of cases. To schedule an appointment to learn more about your legal rights, contact the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664 or through the contact form on this website. One of our helpful workers’ compensation attorneys will be glad to talk to you about your case.

Of course, there are also deadlines that may apply to others who may be involved in the administration and/or litigation of a claim for work-related injury benefits. These parties may include the employer, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, and possibly others, depending upon the circumstances of a particular case.

It should also be noted that, while most work injury cases are resolved in a relatively short period of time (especially if there is no permanent disability to the worker), this is not always so. As the case below proves, some such cases can go on for many years.

Facts of the Case

A recent case considered by the Massachusetts Appeals Court originally arose in 1976, when an employee of the defendant town suffered a fatal industrial accident. After the worker’s death, the town’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier began paying weekly benefits to the deceased employer’s widow. This continued for many years (at least until 2016). About 10 years into the payments to the widow, the insurer began paying a supplemental cost of living adjustment (COLA) pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws ch. 152, § 65(2). For several years, the insurer was reimbursed for the COLA payments by the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund (trust fund). In the early 1990s, however, the town joined a self-insurance group that opted out of participation in the fund.

Over the years, the town received “some” reimbursement from the fund for the COLA payments, but the fund ultimately ceased reimbursing the town. Eventually, the insurer began seeking the COLA payments directly from the town, and a dispute arose. An administrative law judge ruled that the insurer’s claims were subject to the two-year statute of limitations found at 452 Code Mass. Regs. § 3.03(3) (1999). The insurer appealed, and the reviewing board reversed, holding that the regulation upon which the town relied was inapplicable and that the town was responsible for all of the insurer’s COLA claims, not just those arising in the past two years. The town appealed.

Decision of the Court

The appellate court affirmed the board’s decision. Pointing out that the town had identified no specific error in the board’s reasoning for its decision in the insurer’s favor, the reviewing tribunal found support for the board’s ruling in the plain language of the regulation and statute at issue. Per the statute, the trust fund was not obligated to reimburse a non-insuring or self-insuring public employer that chose not to participate in the fund. Thus, entities such as the town were thus not entitled to reimbursement from the fund, and the town was required to fully reimburse its insurer for the COLA benefits at issue.

To Learn More About Filing a Workers’ Compensation Claim

There are important deadlines in Massachusetts workplace accident cases, both for the injured party and for others involved (such as the employer and insurance company). When such matters are not handled in a timely fashion, important rights can be forfeited. If you have been hurt at work or if you have lost a loved one due to an on-the-job accident, you need reliable legal advice concerning your rights. For an appointment to discuss your case with an experienced work injury lawyer, please call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664. We help injured individuals throughout Cape Cod, including those in Hyannis and Plymouth.

Sometimes, contention begins even earlier in the process, with the employer or its insurance company denying the worker’s claim. As grounds, the employer or carrier may claim that the injury did not happen in the course and scope of the employee’s work or that some other defense (such as intoxication on the job) may apply.

In still other cases, the dispute may be even more fundamental. Was there workers’ compensation insurance in effect at the time of the accident in question?

Facts of the Case

In a recent workers’ compensation case considered on appeal by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the claimants were two men who were injured on a construction project while working for a demolition subcontractor in 2016. Prior to the accident giving rise to the litigation, the subcontractor had multiple workers’ compensation insurance policies canceled due to nonpayment of the premiums. The most recent policy, which would have been in effect at the time of the accident under its original terms, was cancelled about four months prior to the claimants’ accident.

The claimants sought compensation from both the subcontractor’s workers’ compensation carrier and the general contractor’s workers’ compensation carrier. An administrative law judge ordered the general contractor’s carrier to pay the claims, but a reviewing judge determined that the subcontractor’s workers’ compensation carrier had not effectively canceled the subcontractor’s policy and concluded that the subcontractor’s workers’ compensation carrier was responsible for the claims. The reviewing board summarily affirmed.

The Court’s Decision

The Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated the lower tribunal’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Because Massachusetts General Laws ch. 152, § 65B, did not require the subcontractor’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier to mail its cancellation of the subcontractor’s policy via certified mail, return receipt requested, the lower tribunal erroneously held that the cancellation was ineffective. Rather, in the appellate court’s view, the insurer had a right to rely “at least in the first instance” upon a certification that it mailed the notice by first class mail to the insured’s address.

Because the administrative law judge did not consider whether the insurer’s prima facie evidence of delivery might be rebutted, the reviewing board was to consider that issue on remand.

To Speak to a Massachusetts Trial Attorney

In most Cape Cod workers’ compensation cases, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier does not dispute coverage but, instead, either avers that the employee’s claim was not compensable or that he or she did not suffer any permanent disability from the accident or injury at issue. However, coverage disputes are not unheard of, and it is important to have a legal advocate in your corner should this or another issue arise during your case. To speak to a member of our staff about your situation, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664 and ask for a free consultation. We’ll be glad to help!

If you or someone in your family has been hurt at work, it is best to talk to a lawyer right away. A knowledgeable work injury attorney will talk to you about the details of your accident and advise you of the procedure for protecting your claim and your legal rights.

Waiting too long to take legal action can result in total forfeiture of an otherwise valid claim, so it important to understand the necessary steps in your particular case. It is important to note that, while there are general statutes of limitation for workers’ compensation cases, the circumstances of your particular case may alter that general timeline. This is especially true in cases involving product injury, injuries out of state, and accidents that were caused by the negligence of a governmental entity.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were the employer of a construction worker who was seriously injured on a construction site at a high school in Massachusetts and the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier. The plaintiffs filed suit against the contractor, various subcontractors, the maker of a retractable lifeline that allegedly failed (thus causing the accident), and others, asserting various claims (including subrogation, negligence, breach of warranty, and breach of contract, among others). Notably, the construction worker, the contractor, and several of the subcontractors were residents of Connecticut; the manufacturer of the lifeline was a German company.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit on the grounds that it was time-barred by Connecticut’s two-year statute of limitations for negligence actions.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

On appeal to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the plaintiffs argued that the lower tribunal had erroneously applied Connecticut law to the case. In the plaintiff’s view, the trial court should have measured the limitations period according to the three-year statute of limitations codified at Massachusetts General Laws ch. 260, § 2A, rather than the shorter period allowed under Connecticut law. After weighing the respective arguments of the parties, the appellate court agreed with the plaintiffs and reversed the lower court’s order dismissing the suit on limitations grounds.

In so holding, the court found that an appropriate approach for determining which state’s law applied was to consider the statute of limitations that would have governed the suit had the construction worker himself filed the action. Given that the accident took place in Massachusetts, the construction worker’s right of action would have been in Massachusetts, and hence the three-year limitations period would have applied. The fact that the plaintiffs were “standing in the shoes” of the construction worker via a subrogation claim did not alter the result.

To Get Legal Advice About a Cape Cod Work Injury

Work-related injuries are common and can sometimes lead to lifelong physical and vocational disability. It is important to understand your legal rights as you go forward in the pursuit of fair compensation for an on-the-job accident or injury, as there are many nuances in this area of the law that can complicate what may initially seem like a straightforward case. If you have questions that you need answered by an experienced workers’ compensation attorney, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664. We handle a wide variety of construction accident and workers’ compensation cases throughout the Cape Cod area, including cases arising in or around Hyannis and Plymouth.

Employees have a right to legal counsel during the benefits determination process. If you have been hurt and are wondering whether you should hire an attorney to represent you in your case, please keep in mind that workers’ compensation attorneys do not charge legal fees up front. Rather, your attorney’s fee will be paid out of any settlement or judgment that you receive, so that the inability to pay an attorney when you are already hurt and out of work is not a barrier.

Facts of the Case

The claimant in a recent (unreported) workers’ compensation case appealed to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court was woman who injured her back in mid-March of 2014 while working as a law librarian for a law firm. The plaintiff first sought medical treatment for her back injury in June 2014. She permanently left her employment in December 2014, at which time she was allegedly still suffering from pain, muscle spasms, and swelling. In September 2015, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurer filed a complaint to discontinue the claimant’s disability benefits.

The administrative law judge held that the claimant was totally disabled from December 2014 to December 2015, that she was partially disabled from December 2015 to September 2016, and that any disability suffered by the claim after September 2016 was not work-related. Accordingly, the claimant’s disability payments were discontinued as of September 2016. The Board of the Department of Industrial Accidents affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision, and the claimant sought further review from the court of appeals.

Decision of the Court

The court of appeals affirmed the decision of the reviewing board. Although the claimant argued that the board’s decision to affirm the administrative law judge’s decision terminating her workers’ compensation benefits was arbitrary and capricious and/or an abuse of discretion, the reviewing court disagreed. The court began by explaining that the board’s decision would only be set aside if there was inadequate evidentiary and factual support or if it was not the product of a reasoned decision-making process within the requirements of Massachusetts workers’ compensation law.

In the court’s opinion, the claimant had failed to show entitlement to relief under the applicable standards, considering the opinions of multiple medical experts (one of whom was hired by the claimant and opined that there may have been at least some “symptoms magnification” by the claimant. With regard to the claimant’s argument regarding the pay rate upon her benefits were calculated by the administrative law judge, the court found that any error redounded in the claimant’s favor and was, thus, not prejudicial.

Legal Professional Here to Help with Your Cape Cod Work Injury Case

Many challenges and complications, both in the physical sense and in the legal sense, can follow a work-related accident. If you have questions about your legal rights and want to discuss your case with a seasoned Cape Cod workers’ compensation attorney, please contact The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, via this website or by dialing 888-262-6664. We will be glad to schedule a time to discuss the details of your case with you and help you determine the best course of action going forward.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case considered by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the plaintiff was a woman who had filed a workers’ compensation claim some years prior. Her claim eventually proceeded to a hearing before the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents, which approved a “lump sum agreement” in 2016. Almost two years later, the plaintiff filed a motion asking that she be granted an extension of time in which to file an appeal from the agreement previously approved by the department. An administrative law judge denied the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time in which to appeal, as well as her motion for reconsideration.

The plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal in the Massachusetts Appeals Court, seeking review of the administrative law judge’s orders denying her motions. The court (through a single justice) treated the plaintiff’s “notice of appeal” as a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal and denied the plaintiff’s request. The plaintiff then filed documents in a county court, seeking review pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws ch. 211, § 3. The plaintiff’s efforts to have her case reviewed by that tribunal were likewise unsuccessful.

The Court’s Decision

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower tribunals’ decisions refusing to grant the plaintiff additional time in which to file an appeal from the 2016 lump sum agreement. Although Massachusetts General Laws ch. 211, § 3 did provide the court with “extraordinary power of superintendence,” this power was to be sparingly, according to the supreme judicial court. In order to obtain relief under the statute, the plaintiff would have to have created a record showing that a substantive right had been substantially violated and that this violation could not have been remedied during the normal course of trial and appeal.

Unfortunately, the plaintiff merely filed two pages of documents in the county court. This did not include any part of the record from the department or from the intermediate appellate court. Without these documents or other evidence that the usual remedial routes had been inadequate, the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under the statute upon which she relied. The court also pointed out that the plaintiff could have – but chose not to – appeal the single justice’s denial of her appeal to a panel of judges.

Get Help with a Cape Cod Work Injury Case

Workers who are injured on the job may be entitled to compensation for temporary or partial disability, as well as payment of certain medical expenses. If you have been hurt on the job and need advice about filing a claim – or, if you have already filed a claim and need to talk to a lawyer about a possible settlement of your case – please call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, and set up a free consultation with our experienced work injury team. You can reach us at 888-262-6664.

Facts of the Case

In a recent appeals court case, the plaintiff was a woman who sued her former employer (a bank) and two former co-workers, alleging that she had suffered personal injuries due to the defendants’ creation of a “toxic work environment” and asserting claims for negligent retention and/or supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The plaintiff opposed the defendants’ motion and moved for permission to amend her complaint to assert a claim for retaliation under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The trial court judge dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without ruling on her motion to amend. The plaintiff appealed.

The Court’s Opinion

On appeal to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court, the plaintiff primarily argued that the lower tribunal had erred in dismissing her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the individual defendants and in refusing to allow her to amend her complaint to add a FMLA claim. The appellate court agreed with the trial court judge’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s emotional distress claim but found that reversible error had been committed with regard to the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint.

According to the court of appeals, the court found that the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint placed the conduct of the individual defendants “squarely within” the scope of their employment with the bank; accordingly, the court held that dismissal of the plaintiff’s emotional distress claim was appropriate in light of the exclusivity provisions of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. Under the Act, an employee’s lawsuit for an intentional tort, including the intentional infliction of emotional distress, is barred.

With respect to the plaintiff’s motion to amend, however, the court held that, because the plaintiff had put forth an actionable claim for retaliation under the FMLA and there had been no undue delay or prejudice, she should have been allowed to amend her complaint. Accordingly, the portion of the trial court’s order denying the plaintiff leave to amend was vacated, but the remainder of the order was affirmed on appeal.

Contact a Lawyer in Cape Cod

If you have been hurt due to another’s negligence or intentional conduct, you should talk to an experienced Massachusetts personal injury attorney. At the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, we handle personal injury accidents, slip and fall cases, car and truck accidents, and workers’ compensation cases. To schedule a free consultation, phone us at 888-262-6664, and we will set up a time for you to come in and tell us about your case. If you need us to, we can come to your home or hospital room for the appointment. There’s no charge until your case is settled or a judgment is entered, so don’t put off talking to a lawyer about your situation.

If the worker’s compensation insurance company denies the claim, the matter will likely proceed to a determination by an administrative law judge; this decision may be further appealed, should either side wish to seek review. If you or someone you know is considering filing a claim for a workplace injury or death, now is the time to speak with a Cape Cod workers’ compensation attorney.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case appealed from the Industrial Accident Reviewing Board, the widow of a man who was killed in an automobile accident sought workers’ compensation benefits on the basis that the decedent (who was the principal of a family-owned business) was killed during the course of business. The defendant insurance company denied the claim. A three-day hearing was held before an administrative law judge. The judge denied the widow’s claim, concluding that the trip during which the decedent was killed was not an undertaking that was in the course of the insured company’s business. The Department of Industrial Accidents’ reviewing board summarily adopted the ALJ’s decision. The widow sought further review.

The Decision of the Court

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the board. The appellate court began by reviewing the background of the decedent’s family business, which was formed to own and operate an import and export business. More specifically, the court noted that the company served as a “manufacturer’s representative” that imported chemicals from a foreign country for sale to certain domestic companies. Although the decedent was not the only employee of the company, he was “solely responsible” for running the business and “called all the shots.” The court further observed that neither the 2005 application for workers’ compensation insurance nor any subsequent renewal documents indicated that there would be in any out-of-state travel or that the company was involved in any business other than the import-export trade.

At the time of his death, the decedent was on his way to another state to meet a real estate broker and a potential buyer for a restaurant that was owned by a limited liability corporation that the decedent had formed and incorporated in the other state where the restaurant was located. In reviewing the overall facts of the case, the court of appeals found that the ALJ’s finding that the decedent was traveling out of state in order to serve his personal interests – not those of the defendant’s insured (the import-export business) – were amply supported by the record. The fact that the insured largely funded the restaurant venture, while a factor to be considered, was not conclusive evidence that the decedent was acting in the course of the insured’s business at the time of the car accident in which he lost his life.

Experienced Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney

There can be may challenges involved in making a claim for workers’ compensation following a work-related injury or a loved one’s death while on the job. To schedule a free consultation with a knowledgeable Cape Cod workers’ compensation attorney, please call The Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, today at 888-262-6664.

In other situations, the case grows more complex over time, as new developments give rise to additional litigation possibilities.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who was injured in 2013 while working on the premises of the defendant company. At the time, the plaintiff was a working for a temporary employment service, from whom she later collected workers’ compensation benefits due to her injury. After being hired as a full-time employee by the defendant, the plaintiff filed a third-party action against an employee of the defendant’s, whom she alleged negligently caused her injury. The plaintiff also named the defendant in the suit, pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

A few weeks thereafter, the defendant terminated the plaintiff, stating that, when the plaintiff sued the defendant, she didn’t have the company’s best interests in mind. The plaintiff then brought an action against the defendant for retaliatory termination in violation of Massachusetts General Laws ch. 152, § 75B(2). The trial court dismissed her claim, and she appealed.

The Court’s Decision

The Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated the lower court’s judgment. According to the appeals court, the plaintiff had exercised a right afforded by the Workers’ Compensation Act when she filed her third-party action against the defendant, and the plaintiff’s amended complaint set forth sufficient facts that the defendant’s termination of her employment was in retaliation for the third-party negligence suit.

According to the court, the Act provides wage-loss protection to employees who are injured on the job and incur a loss of earning capacity from their injuries. Ch. 152, § 75B(2) prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who exercise a right afforded under the Act.

Consult a Massachusetts Work Injury Lawyer

If you have been hurt at work, you need to understand your legal rights, not just with regard to a workers’ compensation claim but also to possible third party actions or even, as in the case discussed above, a possible retaliatory discharge suit against your employer if you are filed after being injured at work. To schedule an appointment to discuss your work injury case with an experienced Cape Cod workers’ compensation lawyer, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, at 888-262-6664. We have offices in Plymouth and Hyannis, and we can make home or hospital visits, if necessary.

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts Appeals Court Holds Workers’ Compensation Insurance Company at Time of 1998 Injury Liable for 2012 Surgery and Other Benefits Massachusetts Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case Based on Exclusivity Provision of Workers’ Compensation Act

In a case recently decided on appeal, the original injury happened some 20 years earlier. The insurance company that paid the original claim resisted being held liable for surgery needed by the employee some 14 years later, but both the workers’ compensation tribunal and the appellate court held otherwise.

Facts of the Case

In a recent (unreported) appellate case, a workers’ compensation claimant hurt his left knee at work in 1998. He had surgery, received all of the workers’ compensation benefits to which he was entitled at that time, and went back to work. In 2008, he was diagnosed with arthritis. This condition worsened over time, eventually necessitating a total knee replacement in 2012. The employee sought additional disability benefits. The insurance company that covered the 1998 injury sought to join subsequent insurers to the proceedings, arguing that the employee had suffered a second work-related injury or an aggravation of the original injury for which the other insurers should be held financially liable.

The administrative law judge disagreed, finding that there was no evidence to support the insurance company’s position. Accordingly, the judge ordered the insurance company to pay all of the workers’ compensation benefits due the employee. The reviewing board affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision, and the insurance company appealed.

Decision of the Court

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals affirmed. The court began its discussion with a reiteration of the rule that “where an employee suffers two or more compensable injuries that are causally related to a resulting incapacity, only one insurer is chargeable.” Only when a second injury contributes to the employee’s incapacity does the insurance company in place at the time of that injury have responsibility to pay workers’ compensation benefits.

It was a factual issue as to whether there was a subsequent compensable injury after the employee’s original 1998 knee injury. Unless the administrative law judge or the reviewing board lacked evidentiary support for their decision in the employee’s favor, the court of appeals lacked the ability to reverse those decisions. During the hearing, the employee testified that he had suffered no other work-related injuries since the 1998 incidence, and this testimony was corroborated by a doctor’s impartial medical report. Given this evidence, the administrative law judge properly denied the insurance company’s motion to join other insurers.

Schedule a Free Consultation with a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney

If you have been injured on the job, you need to know your legal rights. The most effective way to do this is to talk to an experienced Cape Cod workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible. To schedule an obligation-free, completely confidential case evaluation, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, at 888-262-6664 today. We have offices in both Hyannis and Plymouth. If necessary, we can arrange an appointment in your home or hospital room.

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Temporary Total Disability Award to Nurse Who Was Hurt at Work Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Permanent, Total Disability Award in Workers’ Compensation Case

This may sound simple enough – either the claimant worked for the defendant, or he or she did not, right? Actually, the question of whether a claimant was an “employee” as that term is defined in the law can be a rather complex issue. If the alleged “employer” is able to show that the alleged “employee” was, instead, an independent contractor, the claimant’s case is likely to fail.

Facts of the Case

In a workers’ compensation case recently decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the claimant was a woman who began working as a newspaper delivery agent in 2001. She worked for a company that provided home delivery service for newspaper publishers. The company itself did not publish newspapers. Contracts signed by the claimant over a period of years identified her as an independent contractor. In 2010, the claimant fell and hurt her knee and hand while loading newspapers into her personal vehicle, which she used to deliver papers to customers.

The claimant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits in 2012, but her claim was met with an objection from the company’s workers’ compensation insurance company. An administrative law judge initially directed the insurer to pay temporary total incapacity benefits. After the insurer requested a hearing, however, the judge determined that the claimant was an independent contractor and thus was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The reviewing board affirmed. The claimant appealed, and the supreme judicial court transferred the case from the intermediate appellate court on its own initiative.

Decision of the Court

The court affirmed the determination of the reviewing board, holding that the claimant was an independent contractor rather than an “employee,” and, therefore, she was not entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits. In so holding, the court determined that the independent contractor statute codified at Massachusetts General Laws ch. 149, § 148B was not to be used in determining employment status for workers’ compensation claims under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 152.

Seek Legal Advice from a Cape Cod Work Injury Lawyer

If you have been hurt at work, you should talk to an attorney who can protect your legal rights. At the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, we routinely represent those who have been injured on the job. For a free consultation with an experienced Cape Cod workers’ compensation lawyer, call us at 888-262-6664 to schedule an appointment in our Hyannis or Plymouth offices. If needed, we can arrange for a visit to your home or hospital room so that we can get started on your case right away.

Related Blog Posts: Massachusetts Court Refuses to Disturb ALJ’s Denial of Workers’ Compensation Benefits Without Supporting Medical Evidence on Appeal When Causal Connection Existed Between Massachusetts Worker’s Industrial Accident and Subsequent Injury, Worker Was Due Workers’ Compensation Benefits