by

A Massachusetts Appeals Court has recently ruled that two employers can be held jointly responsible for an injured employee´s workers’ compensation benefits, despite them each having classified the worker as an independent contractor.

In Leo Whitman’s Case, No. 10-P-71, Sept. 6, 2011, the court affirmed an earlier decision by the Industrial Accident Reviewing Board within the Department of Industrial Accidents by ruling that the claimant was an employee, not an independent contractor, for both of the businesses he was working for at the time of his injury. Leo Whitman, a construction worker whose specialty was installing drywall, had been working for approximately three years for two redevelopers, Stephen Sarcia and John Citrano. Each purchased, refurbished, and resold delapidated residential properties. The two men also introduced Whitman to Anthony Pace, the owner of PPM, a redevelopment company that also hired Whitman to work on condominium residences.

During this time period, Whitman continued to work for Sarcia and Citrano, whom he thought of as partners, and from PPM. Whitman viewed them collectively as “a group” because of their continuous supply of full-time work for him, according to the court papers. Throughout 2004 and 2005, Whitman worked for PPM in addition to Sarcia and Citrano at 10 different building sites. According to court documents, Whitman thought of Sarcia and Citrano as partners and he thought of Sarcia, Citrano, and PPM, as “a group” because of their continuous supply of full-time work for him. At the rate of $250 per day for five to seven days per week, Whitman was given daily assignments and was paid weekly by checks addressed to him individually. The payments were his sole income and Whitman did not submit a bid or sign a contract related to his work.

Continue reading

by

The Massachusetts State Auditor has revealed that a non-profit human services provider in Western Massachusetts that serves mentally ill and emotionally disturbed children has corruptly used over $1 million in state taxpayer money. They are additionally accused of paying an employee´s workers´ compensation insurance claim with state money during a time period in which their workers´ compensation had lapsed.

In a report released by the auditor´s office, the Easthampton-based Northeast Center for Youth and Families Inc. has allegedly misused funds over a five-year period. The organization serves approximately 600 mentally ill and emotionally disturbed children in Massachusetts. The organization also operates in Connecticut.

State Auditor Suzanne Bump said, “We want to ensure that human service providers like the Northeast Center are spending public funds legally, appropriately and wisely to maximize every dollar and help the greatest number of physical and emotionally needy children, adults and families.” She described that this situation was “another side of the coin of waste, fraud and abuse.” In response to the audit´s findings, the organization responded, “It is possible that we will continue to disagree with one or more of the Auditor’s findings…In any event, we will cooperate with the Commonwealth in its prescribed process for the resolution of audits.”

Auditor Bump reported that the center sent higher cost information to the Department of Youth Services between 2006 and 2008, which resulted in an unfounded overpayment of more than $650,000 to the organization. They also allowed their workers´ compensation insurance to lapse for 21 days in 2007, during which time an employee was injured on the job and was paid $52,073 to cover medical expenses, lost wages and a settlement. In this case, the state auditors determined that the agency used over $7,000 of state funds to pay the claim. The center also reportedly improperly used $406,360 to cover out-of-state losses in Connecticut and the $1 million amount of bonuses that were given out over a three-year time period is now being reviewed by the Department of Youth Services.

A former bookkeeper for 27 years at the organization, Cecile Guilbault, commented “They’ve been doing unethical things for years…I’m glad that finally, after all these years, the state has finally caught up with them.”

Auditor Bump requested that the organization return all fraudulently used funds to the state.

Sources:

State audit finds that Northeast Center for Youth and Families misspent money, Gazettenet.com, August 26, 2011
Audit: Human services provider misused $1m in taxpayer funds, Boston.com, August 25, 2011
Related Blog Posts:

Walgreens to Pay Massachusetts $2.8 Million in Restitution For Overcharging Workers´ Compensation Prescriptions

Massachusetts Governor Patrick Agrees to Workers’ Compensation Rate Freeze

Randolph Woman Charged With Workers’ Compensation Fraud After Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley Investigation

Former Massachusetts Department of Corrections Employee Guilty of Workers’ Compensation Fraud

Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Rate Freeze
Continue reading

by

The Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health (MassCOSH) has recently conducted an assessment of workplace safety at Angelica Textile Services, operating under the name of Royal Institutional Services, in Somerville, Massachusetts. The investigation was prompted by multiple worker complaints in regards to illnesses, injuries, and long-term health problems due to a dangerous and unhealthy working environment. MassCOSH´s findings were recently published in a >report that was compiled from this recent workplace safety assessment. As reported in OSHA Cites Somerville Commercial Laundry Service After Employee Injury, the company was also cited by the

by

A fire in which an employee was badly burned at Monro Muffler Brake Inc. in Hyannis on February 2nd prompted an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA has since charged Monro Muffler Brake Inc., a company from Rochester, N.Y., for 10 alleged violations of workplace safety and $184,000 in proposed fines.

The fire began after a spark from an acetylene torch caught fire to an open container of gasoline. OSHA’s inspection revealed that the fire hazards which workers were exposed to included the open container of gasoline, combustibles within the area where the acetylene torch was being used, an unsafe light fixture in a hazardous location and an overall employee lack of training for fire extinguishers. In addition to these fire hazards, employees were found to be smoking inside the perimeter of the automobile service area where fuels were being drained and where auto parts with fuel were being replaced. OSHA also found that there was not enough lighting in the work area, there were exposed electrical wires, they did not have an eye flushing station or protective eye gear, and their employees lacked safety information about the types of chemicals in use at the workplace.

Brenda Gordon, OSHA’s area director for Boston and southeastern Massachusetts, said, “This is exactly the type of incident and injury that results when an employer fails to comply with common-sense and legally required safeguards for workers…To prevent such occurrences and protect the safety and health of its workers, the employer must ensure that safety and health requirements are met and maintained at all times at all of its locations.”

The Massachusetts work injuries of Altman and Altman have decades of experience in dealing with injuries caused in the workplace as a result of OSHA violations. These cases can sometimes become quite complex, we have access to the finest experts in the commonwealth, and often times have to use them on cases like this.

Monro Muffler Brake was fined a $70,000 fee and charged with one willful violation for the fire hazard of smoking. OSHA issues a willful violation if the employer has “voluntary disregard” for the law’s requirements or for their workers´ safety and health. They were also issued three repeat violations and $80,000 in fines for the lack of fire extinguisher training, the lack of chemical and eye guards. OSHA issues a repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or similar violation within the past five years. In 2009 and 2010 the company was cited for similar safety hazards at their locations in Victor, N.Y., and Norwich, Conn., locations. For the remainder of the safety hazards found during their investigation, OSHA fined the company $34,000 and issued six serious violations. A serious violation is issued if it is likely that an employee could die or experience serious harm from a safety hazard which the employer knew about or should have known about.

If you have been injured in a Massachusetts workplace, it is generally the best advice that you contact an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer. Our attorneys have decades in handling workers compensation cases along with any third party component of the case. If you are not sure what to do about your case, give us a call for a free consultation.

Source:

US Labor Department’s OSHA cites Monro Muffler Brake after worker injured in fire at Hyannis, Mass., location; proposed fines total $184,000, OSHA Regional News Release, August 1, 2011
Related Blog Posts:

Bostik Inc. Provides Cause for Plant Explosion and Worker Injuries in Middleton, Officials Continue Investigation

Gas Explosion in Norfolk Result of ‘Odorant Fade’
Continue reading

by

The Walgreens Company (Walgreens) has agreed to pay the Commonwealth and approximately 75 Massachusetts cities and towns $2.8 Million in a settlement with Attorney General Coakley’s Office. An ongoing investigation by the Attorney General’s Insurance and Financial Services Division exposed that the pharmacy company was overcharging public entities for prescription drugs under the workers´ compensation insurance system. Attorney General Coakley accused Walgreens of billing and receiving payments from cities, towns and state agencies for filling prescriptions for workers compensation claimants at higher prices than what is allowed by Massachusetts laws.

In a statement released by Coakley´s office, she valued Walgreens excess charges at $1.4 million since 2002. Walgreens has agreed to pay these overcharges as well as an additional $1.4 million to the Commonwealth. Coakley stated: “Cities and towns are under a great deal of economic stress, and every dollar counts…Here, the cities and towns were overcharged for prescription drug purchases. Today’s action recovers nearly three million back for local communities, and works to prevent these kinds of overcharges from happening in the future.”

Under the settlement, which was filed in Suffolk Superior Court, the city of Boston will receive approximately $200,000 in restitution. Springfield, Holyoke, Fairhaven, Needham, Lowell, Auburn, New Bedford, Norwood, Revere, South Hadley, and Winchester will also each receive restitution of approximately $10,000. Towns will approximately receive $8,900 each in restitution. The Attorney General has reached settlements also with CVS, Shaws Supermarkets, and Stop & Shop for similarly filling prescriptions for workers´ compensation claimants at higher prices than what is permitted.

According to a Walgreens spokeswoman, the company “did not admit to any liability or wrongdoing and agreed to settle this issue to avoid further legal expense.”

Sources:

Walgreens to pay $2.8m to resolve allegations of overcharging, The Boston Globe, July 14, 2011
Walgreens to Pay $2.8 Million to Resolve Allegations of Prescription Overcharges, Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley Press Release, July 14, 2011
Related Blog Posts:

Massachusetts Governor Patrick Agrees to Workers’ Compensation Rate Freeze

Randolph Woman Charged With Workers’ Compensation Fraud After Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley Investigation

Former Massachusetts Department of Corrections Employee Guilty of Workers’ Compensation Fraud

Former Massachusetts Department of Corrections Employee Guilty of Workers’ Compensation Fraud

Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Rate Freeze
Continue reading

by

A trash collector has died after falling off the back of a trash truck and was run over by the vehicle in Methuen. On the morning of July 12, Keimani Bell, 28, from Dorchester, was working for F.W. Russell & Sons of Somerville, when he grabbed a trash bag from the street, lost his footing off the back of the truck, and fell underneath the vehicle. The truck was backing up at the time of his fall and Bell was subsequently run over. Spokesman for District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett, Steve O’Connell, confirmed that the worker was pronounced deceased at the scene of the work-related accident shortly before 11:30 a.m. O’Connell said the Bell “slipped off the back of the truck as it was going in reverse.”

John Mariano, a witness who lives on the street, commented that he saw the worker at the rear of the truck grab a trash bag off the street, lose his footing, and then fall backwards underneath the trash vehicle. Mariano said, “The worst part was when I saw him roll under the truck … The driver didn’t know he was under the truck. If he had known he was there, he would have stopped.”

The company has provided trash collection services in Methuen for the past six years. O’Connell said there was no indication that the accident was in any way intentional and that no charges have been filed. The name of the trash removal vehicle driver has not yet been released. The city’s public works director, Raymond DiFiore, who oversees the city’s trash collection, commented that he could not remember any accidents involving F.W. Russell & Sons trash trucks in the past six years since they had been employed by the city.

The accident is being thoroughly investigated by local police and state troopers who specialties are accident reconstruction and truck safety, in addition to troopers from District Attorney Blodgett’s office. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is also investigating the accident to determine whether or not workplace safety standards were violated.

If you or your loved one has been injured in the workplace, it is advised that you contact an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer.

Sources:

Trash collector dies after being run over by truck in Methuen , The Boston Globe, Eagle Tribune, July 13, 2011
Trash collector dies after fall from truck, The Boston Globe, July 14, 2011
Related Blog Posts:

Street Cleaning Machine Accident Leaves Operator Dead; OSHA and State Police Reconstruction Team Investigating

OSHA Cites Somerville Commercial Laundry Service After Employee Injury

Bostik Inc. Provides Cause for Plant Explosion and Worker Injuries in Middleton, Officials Continue Investigation

Mansfield Factory Worker Injured by Forklift
Continue reading

by

In a July 5th work-related accident, a 58-year-old street sweeper from Penacook, New Hampshire, was killed in his street sweeping vehicle at an intersection in Norwood, Massachusetts. According to David Traub, spokesman from the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office, the street cleaner, Patrick J. MacDonald, was killed after getting trapped in the street sweeping machinery. David Procopio, State Police spokesman, said that MacDonald appeared to have been doing repairs on the machine when he became entangled into the container that holds debri.

Norwood Fire Department spokesman George Morrice confirmed that paramedics who arrived at the scene pronounced MacDonald dead. The State Police Collision Analysis and Reconstruction team were called to the scene to investigate. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is also investigating the accident to determine whether or not workplace safety standards were violated. OSHA inspections must be completed within 180 days, involve an onsite inspection, interviews, record reviews, and any required testing.

OSHA Spokesman Ted Fitzgerald said that if the administration did find that the accident occurred due to safety violations, then the company would be cited and likely fined. If a violation is cited as serious, the fine could be up to $7,000. OSHA issues a serious violation when death or serious physical harm could likely result from a hazard that the employer should have known about and failed to fix. If the violation is cited as a willful violation, the fine to the company could be up to $70,000. OSHA issues a willful violation, the most serious of violations, when the employer knows that a hazardous situation exists and intentionally makes no attempt to fix it. MacDonald was working for an Everett-based sweeping company called Bay State Sweeping.

Although this fatal accident is still under investigation, many questions arise from the circumstances of the accident as it could have occurred due to operational error or due to a hazard that the employer could have prevented, such as a lack of training. Another possibility is that the sweeping machine malfunctioned, entitling the deceased family to a Massachusetts Defective Products Liability Lawsuit. There are many unknowns about this case. From afar, there may be a defective product claim, but that would likely require the hiring of an expert or numerous experts. The issue of proper training is another avenue that an attorney will look at to see if that may have contributed to the accident. Additionally, knowing if that machine had similar problems in the past or any other operational issues in the past would be important, just as knowing when the last time that machine was inspected. These are just a few issues an attorney would look at. There may be many others that are not apparent right now but may be important as the investigation unfolds.

If you or your loved one has been injured in the workplace, it is best advised that you contact an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer soon after the accident.

Sources:

Worker killed in street sweeping accident in Norwood, The Boston Globe, July 5, 2011
Related Blog Posts:

OSHA Cites Somerville Commercial Laundry Service After Employee Injury

Bostik Inc. Provides Cause for Plant Explosion and Worker Injuries in Middleton, Officials Continue Investigation

Mansfield Factory Worker Injured by Forklift
Continue reading

by

Royal Institutional Services Inc., a commercial laundry service in Somerville, has been cited by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration after a mechanic had his hand compressed by an ironing machine on January 26. The company faces four alleged violations of workplace safety standards and a proposed fine of $49,935.

After learning of the incident in which the employer was lubricating a chain on the iron that was not turned off, OSHA opened its inspection into the company´s workplace safety. They found that not only had the machine been powered at the time of the accident, but that it´s power source was not locked out before the mechanic began his maintenance. OSHA standards require “Lockout/Tagout (LOTO)” procedures which protect employees from the unexpected startup of machinery and equipment when a machine is being serviced or maintenanced by completely powering off the energy to the machine.

OSHA also found that employees who were authorized to work on the machine were not properly trained or monitored to make sure that they knew how to operate the machines and manage their energy.

OSHA’s area director for Middlesex and Essex counties in Massachusetts, Jeffrey A. Erskine said, “It’s not enough for an employer to have a hazardous energy control program in place. It must be effective, and authorized employees must be effectively trained so they will understand and safely utilize proper procedures…Failure to do so can result in serious injury, such as occurred here.”

Because OSHA had previously cited the company for a lack of energy control procedures in March of 2006, Royal Institutional Services was given a repeat violation with a fine of $35,000 for this similar violation. They were also given two serious violations with $14,000 in fines for the lack of proper training and one violation for the lack of written lockout procedures for a machine with a fine of $935.

OSHA issues a repeat violation when an employer has previously been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. OSHA issues a serious violation when death or serious physical harm could likely result from a hazard about which the employer should have known about or knew about and failed to fix.

The inspection was conducted by OSHA´s Andover Area Office and the company has 15 business days to respond to OSHA or contest the charges to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

If you or your loved one has been injured in the workplace, it is advised that you contact an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer.

Source:

US Labor Department’s OSHA cites Somerville, Mass., commercial laundry for safety hazards following worker injury, OSHA Regional News Release, June 28, 2011
Related Blog Posts:

Bostik Inc. Provides Cause for Plant Explosion and Worker Injuries in Middleton, Officials Continue Investigation

Mansfield Factory Worker Injured by Forklift
Continue reading

by

Bostik Inc. reported yesterday that they had determined the cause of their plant´s explosion and 4-alarm fire at their adhesive manufacturing plant in Middleton on March 14. They asserted that the explosion which injured four of their workers was due to open valves that let flammable gas permeate throughout the building. In a press release, they reported that “Findings point to a single instance in which two internal valves in an open position appear to have allowed flammable vapors to escape into the building and ignite when exposed to an internal ignition source.”

However, after meeting with Bostik representatives yesterday, state officials and investigators are hesitant to accept this explanation as a definitive cause. State Fire Marshal Stephen D. Coan said Bostik’s explanation is not an official ruling and that the incident is still being investigated: “Our investigators met with the company and other agencies and were able to obtain additional information…But we are not commenting on nor are we confirming the cause as released by the company…”

The continuing investigation into the cause of the explosion and fire is led by State Fire Marshal Coan´s office and local fire officials. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials are investigating the plant´s workplace safety. OSHA requires such manufacturing companies to have specific procedures to control the accumulation of flammable and combustible material. OSHA also requires the regular maintenance and monitoring of any heat-producing equipment in order to prevent the accidental ignition of flammable material.

Residents nearby the plant complained of an earthquake-like boom due to the explosion and a strong chemical odor in the aftermath. State Fire Marshal Coan confirmed that shortly after the explosion, the haz-mat team had determined that there was no airborne environmental hazard. Local environmental officials were, however, concerned about the possible chemical contamination to the Ipswich River. The location of the plant is situated close to the Middleton, Peabody, and Lynn town lines.

Workplace explosions affect not only the workers but also the residents that surround the workplace facility. Injuries from explosions are not always limited to on the job site workers. When someone is injured on the job they are entitled to workers compensation benefits. These benefits vary depending on the severity of the injury. In addition, if someone happens to be injured on the job and the injury is caused by a third party, that worker may be able to make an additional claim for damages. If you are not sure if you have a third party negligence claim it may be in your best interest to contact a work injury attorney to fully understand your rights.

In addition as in the case above, when there is an explosion on the worksite often times OSHA is called in to see if there were any safety violations in the workplace. While we do not know what OSHA’s findings will be yet on, their findings can impact an injured worker’s injury claim.

If you have been injured in the workplace, it is best advised that you contact an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer.

Sources:

State and company officials discuss Middleton blast, The Boston Globe, May 24, 2011
Bostik Provides Update on the March 13 Incident to Local Agencies, Bostik, Inc., Press Release
Fire Prevention Plans, Standard 1910.39, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSHA investigating Middleton plant blast, The Boston Globe, March 16, 2011
4 hurt in blast, fire at factory, The Boston Globe, March 14, 2011 Continue reading

by

An important decision has recently been made by a Massachusetts Chief Justice who has ruled that the wife of a deceased Massachusetts construction worker can sue the contractor who oversaw a construction site where her husband was killed and son was injured, despite the fact that the contractor has already paid workers’ compensation benefits.

In a 2005 Plum Island construction accident, Timothy Wentworth and his son were working for a subcontractor on a residential jobsite when the waterproofing material they were spraying exploded after a pilot light inside the house ignited. Timothy Wentworth died from his injuries sustained and his son, Ezekiel, sustained serious and disfiguring injuries.

The subcontractor they were working for was Great Green Barrier Co., a company from Maine that did not carry workers´ compensation insurance despite state requirements. The contractor who oversaw the job and subcontractor was Henry C. Becker Custom Building. Becker did carry workers´ compensation insurance and was thus obligated to pay benefits under Massachusetts law. Timothy Wentworth´s widow, Cheryl Wentworth, and Ezekiel, agreed to the settlements and were paid worker’s compensation by Becker in 2007.

Cheryl Wentworth also filed a civil lawsuit against Becker, accusing them of her husband´s death and son´s injuries due to the contractor´s negligence. Wentworth´s claim was initially refused as the court ruled that the accepted payment of worker´s compensation served as a release of all claims arising from the incident and that the contractor was immune from the family suing for a civil claim.

However, just this week, a Massachusetts Chief Justice has reversed the lower court´s decision and has enabled the Wentworths´ claim against the contractor to proceed in civil court. Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland wrote in the court´s decision: “We conclude… that suits are not barred against general contractors that were obligated… to pay workers’ compensation benefits of the uninsured subcontractor’s employees… In sum, the immunity does not apply to the defendant (Becker).”

If you or your loved one suffers from injuries or death due to a work accident, it is best advised that you contact an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer.

Source:

Massachusetts Court Allows Workers’ Suit Against Contractor, Claims Journal, May 23, 2011
Related Blog Posts:

OSHA announces new directive to protect residential roofing workers

Salisbury Construction Contractor Cited by OSHA Following Explosion

Federal Officials Still Investigating Fatal Construction Accident
Continue reading

Contact Information
Cambridge, MA
Main Office
675 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: 617.492.3000Fax: 617.491.3299Toll Free: 800.481.6199
Boston, MA
1 State St
Suite 2
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617.547.1205Toll Free: 800.481.6199
Needham, MA
250 First Avenue 2nd Floor
Needham, MA 02494
Phone: 781.675.2329Toll Free: 800.481.6199

Some Select Cases are referred to other attorneys for principal responsibility

By publishing this information on this Website, the Boston, Massachusetts law firm of Altman & Altman LLP is not claiming to represent any clients or cases mentioned here. The content provided is designed to inform readers and is not intended as legal advice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

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 © 2025, Altman & Altman LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design