Recently, the Massachusetts Court of Appeal considered a claim in which the plaintiff, an injured worker, disagreed with the lower court’s conclusion that he had reached maximum medical improvement. The employee had suffered a left shoulder injury in 2013 and a second injury to his back in 2014. The employer’s insurance company initially paid benefits to the worker for both injuries. In 2014, the insurer stopped paying benefits on the basis that it was not liable for the injuries, that the employee had a pre-existing condition, and that something other than his job was to blame for the injuries. After more proceedings, the court also concluded that the employee had reached maximum medical improvement for the shoulder injury. The judge also awarded compensation for the back injury.

On appeal, the employee argued that the lower court was mistaken in concluding that he did not require further medical treatment for his shoulder injury. The judge adopted an opinion from a medical examiner that the end result had been reached. The report also stated, however, that surgery to treat the left shoulder condition would be a reasonable, necessary, and causally related outcome of the shoulder injury. According to the appellate court, the judge mistakenly equated a medical end result with a lack of need for additional treatment.

The appellate court also concluded that the judge made reversible errors regarding the average weekly wage award that it included in its order. More specifically, the appellate court found that the lower court did not support its findings regarding the awarded average weekly wage. Because the judge did not explain how it arrived at the amount of weekly benefits included in the order, the appellate court vacated the award with instructions to provide the methodology and findings used to support the average weekly wage award. The order that the judge issued failed to include findings of fact about how much the employee earned during the prior year and the documentary evidence provided in the record included conflicting information.

If you suffered an injury at work, you may be entitled to benefit payments and medical expenses reimbursements through the Massachusetts workers’ compensation system. We understand how confusing and overwhelming this process may seem, which is why we provide a free consultation to help you learn more about your potential rights and whether we can assist you. Call us now at 781-843-2200 or contact us online.

In one Massachusetts workers’ compensation claim, the employee reportedly suffered traumatic injuries while working at a psychiatric department in a state hospital. A patient attacked the worker, kicking him repeatedly until he lost consciousness. As a result of the attack, he required ongoing medical treatment for a right leg fracture, deep vein thrombosis, chronic pain, and instability. The worker filed a claim for benefits and the judge made an award. In the award, the court found a number of pre-existing conditions that were not implicated in the accident such as the worker’s pre-existing degenerative arthritis of the spine. The judge concluded that these pre-existing conditions did not extend the need for treatment or the length of the employee’s incapacity.

The worker filed a claim for additional benefits. At the hearing, the judge concluded based on the evidence presented that the worker was so severely injured that he could barely care for himself and get around his home. Relying on an opinion from an independent medical examiner, the judge concluded that the worker was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the attack. The judge stated that the findings did not disturb the prior finding that the employee’s pre-existing conditions did not conflate with the attack.

The insurer appealed, arguing that the judge should not have adopted the independent medical examiner’s report to find that the employee was permanently and totally disabled because the doctor who wrote the report relied in part on the worker’s pre-existing conditions to reach that conclusion. The appellate court ultimately rejected this argument noting that a judge can adopt all or part of an independent medical examiner’s report and that the judge specifically noted that prior findings regarding pre-existing injuries were not disturbed as a result of the finding. The judge specifically noted that the evidence did not show any changes in the employee’s post-accident condition regarding his pre-existing conditions.

The appellate court also rejected the insurer’s contention that the lower court erred in rejecting its vocational expert’s testimony about jobs that were suitable for the employee. The appellate court stated that the judge relied on credible testimony from the witness about his injuries and the unlikelihood that he can return to work.

If you suffered severe injuries at work, you may be entitled to benefits and medical expenses reimbursement. Let our seasoned team of Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyers guide you through the process while ensuring that your rights are protected and enforced properly at each stage of the claims process. To set up a free consultation call us at 781-843-2200 or contact us online to get started.

A recent case explores what is referred to as the going and coming doctrine. The employee involved in the claim was working as a psychiatric nurse at the time of her injury according to a contract with a healthcare provider. She lived in Massachusetts and was assigned by her employer to work at a treatment facility in Vermont. She drove home from Vermont at the end of each five-day shift and was under the impression that she was being given expenses for lodging and meals for the five-day period. She did not seek reimbursement for travel expenses because the policy was not clear, according to her, and she did not think she was required to submit expenses.

On the date of the accident, the employee was leaving her five-day shift and driving back to her home in Massachusetts. She was involved in an accident on the way home that required several surgeries and rehabilitation. She suffered serious injuries and had no memory of the crash. She filed for workers’ compensation benefits and the insurer objected on the basis that she was not working at the time of the accident. The lower court judge reviewed evidence regarding the employee and employer relationship and determined that the employer was liable for benefit payments. The insurer appealed on the basis that the employee was not a traveling employee and that the going and coming rule should have barred compensation.

The reviewing court ultimately agreed with the lower court. It reviewed the going and coming rule, which provides compensation for injuries that happen when an employee travels to and from a fixed single place of employment. This rule does not apply to traveling employees, however. The appellate court rejected the insurer’s suggestion that the employee had a fixed place of employment at the Vermont facility and found instead that she was a traveling employee.

If you were hurt at work, including on the way to or from work as a traveling employee, you may be entitled to compensation. At Pulgini & Norton, we understand how overwhelming this experience can be and how difficult it is to know whether your rights are being protected. Our seasoned team of Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyers is standing by to answer your questions in a free consultation. Call us now at 781-843-2200 or contact us online to schedule an appointment.

A recent claim involved an appeal from an employee of a hearing that required the Worker’s Compensation Trust Fund to pay benefits at the rate of $301.37 per week based on an average weekly wage calculation of $502.28. The employee reportedly suffered a work-related injury while working for a painting company. The employee painted houses primarily during the summer for a period of six months and also worked seasonally at the restaurant.

The only issue in the matter was whether the judge reached an appropriate determination regarding his average weekly wage. One of the stipulations that the parties entered into during the claim was that the employee was concurrently employed at a restaurant where he worked roughly 15 hours per week, earning $226.25 each week.

During the proceedings, the injured worker testified that he worked seasonally as a painter and at the restaurant job. As a result, the judge stated that a seasonal average weekly wage is calculated by dividing the earnings over the previous 52 weeks instead of the number of weeks that the employee actually worked.

On appeal, the worker argued that the insurer did not raise any issues regarding seasonal employment until the hearing and that the employee was denied proper procedural law as a result. The appellate court rejected this argument finding that the issue of seasonal employment was discussed during the hearing when the employee testified about his work for the painting company. The employee did not object to questions or comments about the seasonal nature of his job during the hearing, and the record showed that the employee cross-examined witnesses during the hearing who testified about the seasonal nature. As a result, the appellate court rejected the plaintiff’s argument on this point and affirmed the lower court’s determination of the worker’s average weekly wage as a painter.

The worker also appealed on the basis that the lower court made an unlawful change to one of the stipulations that the parties agreed to before the hearing. The court agreed with the employee on this point and remanded the matter for additional proceedings to determine the employee’s correct average weekly wage at the restaurant.

If you were hurt at work, you probably have numerous questions about workers’ compensation claims and the best way to go about protecting your rights. At Pulgini & Norton, we proudly serve workers who were injured while on the job with gathering evidence, appearing in court, filling out paperwork, and obtaining the medical treatment and weekly benefits that they deserve. To schedule a free consultation, please call us as soon as possible at 781-843-2200 or contact us online.

In a recent claim dispute, the insurer appealed from an order requiring it to pay benefits and reimbursement for reasonable and necessary medical expenses, including prescriptions for ibuprofen and Topamax. The insurer disputed the award on the basis that the presiding judge did not perform an appropriate analysis about the causal link between the injury and the treatment. It also argued that the lower court mischaracterized evidence regarding the worker’s status as obese.

The injury happened when the employee was attending a company cookout. He slipped and suffered an injury to his left knee. He tried to continue working but was unable to do so. He underwent multiple surgeries to his ankle and knee as a result. During the proceedings, the insurer raised a question as to whether the court had properly done an analysis regarding the employee’s obesity as a preexisting condition. The lower court ultimately awarded benefits and medical reimbursement payments and the insurer appealed.

Although the insurer raised the defense, the appellate court concluded that the insurer had failed to provide an appropriate offer of proof to show that a pre-existing condition was a substantial factor in the injury. The lower court also did not adopt any medical evidence or reports stating that the employee’s status as morbidly obese combined with the injury that happened at the picnic caused the ongoing disability or need for treatment. The appellate court rejected the insurer’s insistence that its counsel’s statement at a hearing that the employee’s obesity qualified as a medical condition satisfied the offer of proof requirement. The requirement that a party raising pre-existing conditions as a defense or issue in a case provide an offer of proof requires a more substantive evidentiary showing.

The appellate court noted that the insurer had several opportunities throughout the claim process to obtain information about whether the worker’s obesity was a contributing factor, including a deposition of a medical professional who examined the worker. At no point during the deposition did the insurer ask questions about whether the employee’s obesity was a factor in causing the injury or the prolonged need for treatment. Based on these findings, the appellate court upheld the award.

If you were hurt at work, you should seek counsel from an experienced Boston work injury lawyer. The workers’ compensation claims process may seem straightforward but there are countless procedural and substantive rules that govern the determination of whether you are entitled to benefits. While you are coping with the stress and inconvenience of your injury, we will ensure that you are being treated fairly. Call us today at 781-843-2200 or contact us online to get started.

Recently, a Massachusetts appellate court considered an appeal involving a woman who worked as a flight attendant when she allegedly suffered a work injury to her elbow resulting in surgery. She returned to work 18 months after the injury in a full-time capacity until she left work as the result of continuing pain. The employee sought reimbursement for medical expenses, but the insurer denied it raising a question of causation. In other words, the insurer was not convinced that the injury and resulting medical treatment were directly related to her job duties. A conference order was held, and the presiding judge ordered the insurer to pay the medical expenses. The insurer appealed the award.

The employee was next required to undergo a medical examination with an independent doctor who provided a report to the court. After this, the insurer revoked its rejection of the medical expenses claim and accepted liability for the injury. In the report, the doctor indicated that there was aggravation of underlying degenerative arthritis and disk disease as well as other symptoms and injuries. The doctor also said that the repetitive tasks that she performed at work were the sole cause of some of the medical issues.

Nearly a year later, the insurer filed a complaint for discontinuance alleging that the disability was no longer causally related to her work. Another physician examined the employee and concluded that her injuries were not related to her work. The court denied the request, however, relying on the original medical report. The insurer appealed, arguing that the court could not permissibly rely on the medical report that predated its complaint for a discontinuance of benefit payments.

The reviewing court ultimately vacated the award of benefits finding that the court did not make an appropriate evidentiary finding regarding the cause of the employee’s injury and whether it was primarily attributable to a pre-existing condition or her occupation. When there is a question of causation involving a pre-existing condition, the party seeking benefits must meet a heightened standard of proof. A medical opinion must provide the relative degree to which different causes have contributed to the injury.

If you were involved in a work-related accident, you may be entitled to compensation. Our competent and compassionate Massachusetts workers’ compensation team provides a free consultation to discuss your potential claim and how we may be able to assist you. We know that the workers’ compensation claim process can be incredibly overwhelming and confusing, especially if you are coping with a lack of income and being unable to work. Contact us today at 781-843-2200 or contact us online to get started.

A recent case explored a situation involving an employee who reportedly suffered a shoulder injury followed by a back injury while at work. The employee received benefits, but the insurer eventually raised issues including causation, that the employee had a pre-existing condition, and that his injury was not caused by a work-related condition. At the hearing to determine whether the employee was entitled to benefits, the employee requested payment for the reasonable cost of a shoulder surgery to address his shoulder condition.

The judge concluded that the employee had reached maximum improvement on his shoulder injury but that he was partially disabled as a result. The judge also awarded benefits for the back injury, finding it to be causally related to his job duties. Both parties appealed. The judge also noted that the employee had sought medical benefits in a general fashion.

On review, the employee contended that the judge erred in finding that there was no additional need for medical treatment for the employee’s shoulder injury. The appellate court reviewed the evidence in the record and agreed with the employee. One of the employee’s treating physicians wrote in a report that the employee would benefit from surgery, for example. The judge mistakenly confused reaching a medical end result with not needing additional treatment.

The court also agreed with the employer that the judge did not make an appropriate finding regarding the employee’s average weekly wage. The judge did not support his findings with information based on fact regarding how much the employee made on an average basis. The judge did not explain the methodology or math used to reach the figure in the order, which made it difficult for the reviewing court to assess whether the appropriate rules were applied. As a result, the appellate court reversed the order and remanded the case for additional findings.

If you were hurt while at work you may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits and reimbursement for your medical expenses. Pulgini & Norton’s seasoned team of Boston work injury attorneys can assist you in investigating your claim, gathering evidence, and protecting your rights during the complex proceedings. We provide a free consultation so that you can understand the process and how we can help you. Contact us today at 781-843-2200 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent workers’ compensation claim, the employee worked as a lineman starting in 1996. In 2012, he reportedly suffered injuries when a four-foot retaining wall on which he was standing collapsed. He kept working after the accident until he had shoulder surgery. After that, he returned to light-duty work in January 2013 until he left work in April of that same year claiming that he was unable to work without extreme pain even in a light-duty capacity. The worker sought benefits for this injury as well and sought compensation for physical therapy to address neck pain.

The worker also received benefits for his injuries. As part of the claims process, he underwent an independent medical examination. Based on the medical evidence and testimony from the employee submitted, the judge rejected the employee’s claim that he suffered a second work-related injury in 2013 that allegedly caused him to leave work, denying the employee’s claim for physical therapy to address pain in his neck. Regarding the original accident involving the collapsing retaining wall, the court awarded benefits in the amount of $671.32 based on an earning capacity of $400.00 per week.

The court also concluded that the employee’s skills and training made him eligible to find work in another light-duty capacity industry. This assessment was made according to a vocational expert’s evaluation of the employee, his job history, and his training.

The worker appealed this decision. The appellate court ultimately agreed with the lower court, finding sufficient evidence in the record to support the judge’s conclusion to not award benefits for the second claimed injury. When it comes to determining witness credibility, deference is given to lower courts who have the benefit of seeing, hearing, and speaking with the witness as opposed to the reviewing court which can only read about the interactions in the record. The lower court found that the employee was not a credible witness and that he exaggerated the pain he experienced when performing light-duty work.

If you were hurt at work, you deserve compassionate and experienced legal counsel. Whether this is your first work-related injury or a subsequent situation, the seasoned team of lawyers at Pulgini & Norton are standing by to assist you with determining whether you are entitled to benefits and reimbursements for your medical expenses associated with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation claim. We offer a free consultation to discuss your situation and to help you learn more about our team and whether we can help you. To get started, contact us as soon as possible at 781-843-2200 or contact us online.

In a recent claim, the appellate court was asked to consider whether the lower court calculated the injured employee’s average weekly wage correctly. The insurer appealed a determination from the lower court judge that the employee’s average weekly wage was $1,726.37 after the judge concluded that new evidence about the employee’s wages rendered a stipulation between the parties invalid. According to the insurer, the employee did not appeal from the conference order including this determination and did not file a request to submit a late appeal and the lower court also made an error regarding a determination that the employee suffered an injury to his right knee as a result of the accident.

First, regarding the knee injury, the judge concluded that the lower court made improper findings in its order based on the fact that the worker and the insurer had signed a stipulation stating that the only issue for consideration in the hearing involved the employee’s average weekly wage and that there were no medical issues in dispute.

Turning to the weekly wage argument, the appellate court disagreed with the lower court’s calculation and concluded that the average weekly wage should be set at $1490.33. The judge impermissibly vacated a stipulation between the employer and the insurer stating that the average weekly wage was $1,490.33, finding that the actual paychecks that the employee received were not available before this hearing and that this stipulated amount was merely an estimation. The appellate court also concluded that the judge wrongfully determined that the employee was entitled to a higher average weekly wage when it found that the insurer misclassified the employee as an independent contractor.

Although a judge can vacate a stipulation in some instances, the lower court did not have a basis to do so here under the guise of newly discovered evidence, meaning the paychecks. Evidence in the record showed that the employee likely could have obtained those checks before the original hearing and the record showed that he did not make an effort to obtain those checks at any point prior to the hearing.

If you were hurt at work, you may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits as well as reimbursements for your medical expenses associated with the on-the-job injury. It is normal to feel overwhelmed and confused during this time, which is why the Boston work injury lawyers of Pulgini & Norton offer a free consultation to help you learn more about how our team of legal experts can help you. Call us today to schedule a free consultation at 781-843-2200 or contact us online to get started.

In a recent case, the employee reportedly suffered disfigurement in the form of a limp as the result of a work injury associated with his left knee. In a conference hearing to determine whether the employee was entitled to benefits, the presiding judge awarded $8,205.53 for the disfigurement. Both parties appealed and the employee underwent an independent medical examination. Although the resulting report did not address the limp, the doctor did note that the employee walked “without an obvious limp.” Following this report, the insurer withdrew its appeal of the original order. The judge stated that the only issue left to resolve was the amount of compensation to be awarded to the employee.

The judge observed the employee at another hearing and noted that the employee walked with a slight limp. The judge also credited the employee’s testimony regarding his limp and the insurer’s witness, who conducted surveillance on the employee. The investigator testified that the employee did walk with a limp. Based on this evidence and other evidence submitted, the judge awarded the employee $10,940.70, which was calculated by multiplying the state average weekly wage on the date that the employee suffered the injury by 10. The judge considered this to be in the middle range of awards.

The insurer appealed arguing that the judge erred by not considering the independent medical examiner’s report stating that the employee did not walk with a limp. The appellate court rejected this assertion finding that when the insurer withdrew its appeal of the first conference order, there were no more medical issues to be resolved in the case. The only remaining issue involved how much compensation should be awarded, which was not a medical issue requiring testimony or evidence from a medical professional. Also, the appellate court noted that the judge’s description of the employee’s limp was materially similar to the opinion from the private investigator. Finally, the judge’s conclusion that the employee had a slight limp was sufficiently in line with the report’s statement that the employee walked without an obvious limp.

If you were injured at work, you should speak to our dedicated and compassionate team of Boston work injury lawyers as soon as possible. We provide a free consultation to help you learn more about our legal team, the workers’ compensation claims process, and how we can assist you with securing the benefits and payments that you deserve. Call us now at 781-843-2200 or contact us online to set up your appointment now.