Published on:

The Massachusetts Reviewing Board recently analyzed a case involving an employee’s allegation that the judge had erred in determining that she had not proven her claim of disability based on exposure to irritants causing asthma.  The Board stated that an employee’s claim for workers’ compensation based on environmental conditions at work requires showing a causal relationship between the work conditions and the injuries sustained. In this case, the Board held the employee suffered an industrial accident while working, emphasizing that the judge adopted medical evidence that caschool hallwayusally related her condition to her exposure to irritants at work.

Valerie Bonds worked for the Boston Public School Department, teaching from 1989 until October 20, 2011.  Respiratory distress caused her to leave her position. She worked in buildings that were dilapidated, with water damage, leaks, exposed water pipes, and poor soil quality. While Ms. Bonds did not have a history of asthma, she had smoked for 34 years, and she began having respiratory issues in 2008. Ms. Bonds found her breathing issues took place when she was working inside school buildings, but her symptoms dissipated when she left school for fresh air.  While Ms. Bonds temporarily left the school, she decided on October 20, 2011 that she could not return to work.

Ms. Bonds was diagnosed with rhinitis and work-related asthma.  The judge found that Ms. Bonds’ condition was aggravated, if not caused, by the school air quality.  But the judge denied and dismissed Ms. Bonds’ claim on the grounds that she had not presented persuasive evidence of her inability to work in the school buildings and that she had failed to prove she could not work at all. The judge cited the medical opinion that Ms. Bonds could work in an environment free of airborne irritants and factors increasing the growth of mold and water damage.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In an appeal involving two separate work-related injuries, the Board affirmed a lower judge’s finding that a second incident was not the cause of further harm.  Since the employee worked for two separate employers, the workers’ compensation insurance company for the first employer argued that the second employer (and insurer) should be liable for the injuries from the second incident.  The Board reviewed the judge’s findings and held that a compensable personal injury did not take place when the employee’s knee gave out a second time.justice

Jair Ortiz Vasquez worked as a houseman for Sheraton Springfield, insured by AIM Mutual Insurance Company (AIM).  During work on September 7, 2011, he fell through a gap located between a loading dock and a truck, and his left leg twisted, resulting in pain in his left knee. After treatment, he returned to work five days later for Sheraton and his other concurrent employer, SPHS Mercy Medical Center, insured by ACE American Insurance Company.

On September 28, 2011, while working at Mercy, the judge found that Mr. Vasquez lost control of his left leg and fell forward, and in the weeks before that incident, he had lost control of his left leg.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The Massachusetts Reviewing Board of Industrial Accidents recently reviewed an administrative judge’s decision regarding § 34 and § 35 benefits, as well as § 13 and § 30 benefits, in a workers’ compensation appeal regarding an employee’s psychological harm. The Board reviewed whether the impartial examiner set forth an opinion that the predominant cause of the employee’s disability had been caused by workload issues.prison

The employee, 44 years old at the time of the hearing, worked as a corrections officer from February 2010 to March 20, 2012, and he alleged he suffered a psychiatric disability due to both his heavy workload and an inmate’s threat of harm.  The judge had found that the employee’s workload was the predominant cause of his disability. He also found that the employer’s actions were not “a personnel action,” so they did not immunize the employer from liability.  The self-insurer argued that the judge erred when he relied on the impartial examiner’s report after rejecting some of the history on which the report was based.

The employee in this case worked at MCI Concord as a corrections officer. He tested inmates for drugs and was assigned other duties as well. The employee testified to his heavy workload and the resulting stress caused by working overtime.  He also explained that an inmate threatened to harm him if he went back on an agreement not to raid his cell.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Recently, the Massachusetts Reviewing Board of Industrial Accidents reviewed a decision in favor of an injured worker who received compensation benefits for permanent and total incapacity from his employer until his employer filed for bankruptcy.  The issue in this appeal was how the employee would receive compensation, without a gap in payments.  Both the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund (WCTF) and Safeco Insurance Company cross-appealed a lower court decision awarding § 34 benefits to the employee.

coins

The Board, in reviewing the decision of the judge, based much of the analysis on the purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and an employee’s right to benefits.

In this case, the employee had worked for the employer until his injury on January 21, 2005. At that time, the employer was self-insured.  The employee began receiving § 34 benefits and then § 34A benefits.  On the date of the injury, the self-insurer had reinsurance that it bought from ACE.  The employer also posted a bond with the department before filing for bankruptcy.  Safeco held the bond and began to pay compensation to the employee.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Recently, the Massachusetts Reviewing Board of Industrial Accidents analyzed whether an employee had met her burden of proving that her falls suffered at work were compensable under the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act. In this case, the Board found that even without considering the falls, the medical evidence supported a finding that it was the repetitive and strenuous work that caused the employee’s disability.  The Board affirmed the decision to award the employee § 34 temporary total incapacity benefits, ongoing § 35 partial incapacity benefits, and §§ 13 and 30 benefits.

hospital injury

At age 61, the employee had been educated through the fourth grade in the Azores. She worked first as a housekeeper for the employer, and later as a certified nursing assistant.  She described this job as physical, requiring her to bathe, dress, feed, and move patients.  In the course of performing these duties, she testified that she felt pain in her knees, particularly her right knee.  She also stated that while bringing a tray to a patient in 2011, she fell and landed on her right knee.  Initially, she stated she “fell in the bed,” but then upon further questioning, she testified she fell directly to the floor, without hitting anything.  She also testified that before this fall, she had fallen a few times.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Recently, the Massachusetts Reviewing Board of Industrial Accidents addressed an appeal in a case involving benefits for a work-related limp suffered by an employee. At issue was not the cause of the injury but instead the amount of benefits awarded the employee.  The judge had not relied upon a medical report, and the insurer appealed on the ground that it should have been factored into the assessment of the employee’s limp.legal evidence limp

The insurer for the employer appealed the decision in favor of the employee, who was awarded $10,940.70 under § 36(1)(k) for a work-related limp.  This section of Massachusetts law provides that an employee shall be paid compensation for specific injuries, including those for bodily disfigurement.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The Massachusetts Reviewing Board of Industrial Accidents recently reviewed an administrative judge’s decision regarding § 34 and § 35 benefits in a workers’ compensation appeal.  Specifically, the judge allowed the employer’s insurance company to submit additional medical evidence in support of modifying the injured employee’s benefits.

concrete legal injury

At the time of the hearing, the employee, Jeffrey Spencer, was 48 and had experience as a construction worker, tree climber, pruner, and truck driver.  He worked as a concrete mixer driver for JG MacLellan Concrete Co., his employer.  Mr. Spencer’s position required driving the concrete mixer driver for the employer and mixing the concrete, as well as installing heavy (60-90 pounds) metal chutes to deliver the concrete at the worksite.

On November 25, 2013, Mr. Spencer slipped and fell on a wet surface, and his arm was caught as he fell, causing a work-related injury to his right shoulder.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Recently, the Massachusetts Reviewing Board of Industrial Accidents analyzed the issue of adopting medical opinions consistent with facts regarding workers’ compensation benefits for an employee suffering from work-related injuries. Kujtime Uka, an employee of Westwood Lodge Hospital, appealed a decision denying her claim for benefits based on two work-related incidents.   In Uka v. Westwood Lodge Hosp., the Reviewing Board assessed the judge’s factual findings and held they were inconsistent with the medical opinions regarding the injured employee’s alleged psychiatric conditions.

legal opinion medical

Ms. Uka worked as a Mental Health Associate for the Hospital.  The judge found that Ms. Uka was assaulted by patients on October 20, 2006, and again at work on May 26, 2008.  After suffering physical injuries, Ms. Uka was incapacitated from work from July 1, 2010 to October 11, 2011.  The judge also determined that Ms. Uka’s treatment for headaches and physical injuries was reasonable and compensable.  After adopting portions of the medical opinions of a medical professional, Dr. Michael Rater, M.D., the judge held that the assaults suffered by Ms. Uka did not cause her post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other psychiatric conditions.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents Reviewing Board reversed an award of § 34A permanent and total incapacity benefits granted by an administrative law judge because the injured employee did not present credible evidence of the need for an award of these benefits.  Instead, in chef legal injurythis decision, the Board granted the employee § 35 benefits for partial incapacity.

In this case, a 54-year-old food service worker with over 20 years of experience in the industry claimed that she suffered injuries to her neck and shoulder while working as a chef.  Following her injury, her employer accepted liability for her harm, and the employee underwent two surgeries.  More than two years later, her employer moved to discontinue her workers’ compensation benefits payments.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In a recent opinion, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts reviewed a workers’ compensation case in the matter of In re Murphy, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 (2016). The employee appealed a decision of the Reviewing Board of the Department of Industrial Accidents, which affirmed an order by the administrative judge denying his claim for total benefits under G.L. c. 152 § 34A and partial benefits under § 35. In addition, the employee’s claims for interest and penalties under § 8(1) and attorney’s fees pursuant to § 13A were denied.carpal tunnel syndrome

On appeal, the employee argued that the administrative judge erred in determining that his carpal tunnel syndrome had not worsened. Specifically, the employee maintained that the causally related condition of his left wrist was definitive proof that a change in condition existed. The appeals court, however, found that the medical evidence indicated that the employee’s carpal tunnel syndrome had in fact improved since he had stopped working. As a result, the court found the administrative judge did not err in denying partial and total benefits to the employee.

Continue reading →

Contact Information