Walking-Working Surface Safety Regulations
Generally, employers are required to keep all walking-working surfaces safe for employees, visitors, and patrons. There is a specific OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulation which addresses this safety issue:
29 CFR 1910.22(a)(3): Walking-working surfaces are maintained free of hazards such as sharp or protruding objects, loose boards, corrosion, leaks, spills, snow, and ice.
In the construction industry, there is a general rule of thumb often referred to as the “6-foot rule.” The “6-foot rule” typically is applied to major commercial construction projects, as well as smaller residential construction projects, amongst others. Essentially, the 6-foot rule requires employers to implement the use of fall protection when construction workers are working at heights of 6 feet or greater above a lower level.
At the Carney, Rezendes & Crowley, LLC, our attorneys have fought hard and successfully represented injured construction workers who were injured due to a “6-foot rule” safety violation. Recently, Attorneys Jeremy M. Carroll and Brendan G. Carney obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $925,000 for an injured construction worker who fell 10 feet because there was no fall protection.
On October 29, 2020, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its ruling in Mark Mendes’s Case, No. SJC-12857, which held that the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim involving an interstate truck driver based on his employment having “sufficient significant contacts” with Massachusetts. This opinion expands Massachusetts’ jurisdiction over workers’ compensation claims, where in the past they were limited to circumstances where:
No. Typically, you do not pay a personal injury or a workers’ compensation attorney out-of-pocket. At the Carney, Rezendes & Crowley, LLC, we focus on personal injury and workers’ compensation cases which operate on what is called a “contingency” fee. A “contingency fee” means that we only get paid if we get you compensation, which typically occurs through either a negotiated settlement, mediation, arbitration, or a jury trial verdict.
Why Not?
The reason for a “contingency fee” is to be able to provide legal representation to injured workers and injured people from all levels of income. If personal injury or workers’ compensation attorneys required clients to pay attorney fees out-of-pocket, only wealthy people would be able to afford an attorney when they are hurt. Injured workers and people from all income levels deserve an attorney to fight for them and to represent them for injuries that never should have occurred. Here at the Carney, Rezendes & Crowley, LLC, we take pride in fighting for injured workers and people who are injured needlessly due to safety violations which occur in construction sites, motor vehicle collisions, and many other types of dangerous situations.
Recently, Brendan G. Carney of Carney, Rezendes & Crowley, LLC was able to successfully negotiate a lump sum settlement of a Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation claim in the amount of $825,000.00. This settlement was reached on behalf of our client, a forty one year old woman who was working as a bank branch manager when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident while traveling from an offsite bank meeting back to her regular bank office. The employee suffered a life-altering spinal cord injury that would render her permanently and totally disabled. In addition to the lump sum settlement, Carney, Rezendes & Crowley, LLC was able to obtain an additional $218,000.00 in permanent loss of function benefits. The employee had received weekly benefits for over three years prior to the settlement. The total recovery for the employee exceeded $1,200,000.00. Continue reading
“No-Fault” Insurance Coverage
“PIP” stands for “Personal Injury Protection” and it is mandatory in Massachusetts as part of every driver’s insurance coverage pursuant to M.G.L. c.90 Sec. 34M.
The purpose of PIP is to help pay up to $8,0000 for medical costs, lost wages, funeral costs and household services incurred as a result of an injury from a car crash, regardless of who is at fault for causing the motor vehicle collision.
That means that it doesn’t matter whether you were responsible for causing the accident, or if someone else was, the “PIP” benefits are still available from the car insurance provider for those who qualify.
If you are injured in a motor vehicle collision, you will likely receive forms from insurance companies called “PIP Applications.” This can be an overwhelming process for people who are already dealing with injuries from a car accident. At the Carney, Rezendes & Crowley, LLC, we have experience attorneys who can represent you to help coordinate and facilitate the documentation and process.
Injured by a Forklift?
Forklift, or Powered Industrial Truck (“P.I.T.”), injuries are very common in the construction industry for both drivers and nearby workers. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an estimated 85 deaths result each year as a result of forklift operation accidents, as well as almost 35,000 serious injuries and almost 62,000 non-serious injuries per year. In the U.S., 1 in every 6 workplace deaths occur in forklift related incidents.
With roughly 856,000 total forklifts in the United States, this means that approximately 1 in 9 forklifts will be involved in an accident that results in injury or death. Further, the Industrial Truck Association estimates the average use for the life of a forklift or P.I.T. is approximately 8 years. Taking this factor into consideration, a fair projection calculates that almost 90% of forklifts will be involved in an incident that results in a worker getting injured over the course of the lifetime of the forklift. At the Carney, Rezendes & Crowley, LLC, we have skilled and dedicated attorneys who are experienced representing people with personal injury and workers’ compensation claims resulting from forklift accidents.
Judge gavel, scales of justice and law books in court
Massachusetts’ workers who have suffered serious work related injuries and occupational diseases must often times make the important decision as to whether or not to accept an offer a lump sum settlement of their workers’ compensation claim. Typically when an injured worker is either at or near maximum medical improvement, their employer’s workers’ compensation insurer will contact the injured worker or their attorney to discuss the possibility of settling the claim. There are many important factors to consider when determining if a settlement is in the best interest of the injured worker. Before addressing those important issues, first I want to define some important terms: Continue reading
Judge gavel, scales of justice and law books in court
On June 4, 2019, a Middlesex County jury awarded the Plaintiff, Benjamin Roy, a total of $925,000.00, which was reduced by 26% to $684,500.00 for the comparative negligence of Mr. Roy. With interest, the final judgment amounted to $828,301.18.
On February 5, 2015, Mr. Roy, age 37, was working as a foreman for a framing contractor Shawnlee Construction at the construction of an Avalon apartment complex in Marlborough, MA. Shawnlee Construction had subcontracted a portion of the framing work to the Defendant Freitas Corporation. Later in the day, while inspecting the work of the Defendant, Mr. Roy fell through an unguarded opening onto a concrete floor 8-9 feet below, causing him to fracture his right calcaneus (heel bone). Mr. Roy alleged negligence on the part of Defendant Freitas Corporation, namely that Freitas was responsible for installing guardrails in his work area to protect workers from heights of greater than six feet, per OSHA regulations. The Defendant denied that he had failed to install guardrails at any time on this construction project. The evidence presented at trial established that Shawnlee Construction had been having issues with the Defendant adhering to industry safety rules on several prior occasions, including issues with failing to install guardrails in other areas of the construction project. The Defendant also alleged that Mr. Roy was to blame for his injuries because Mr. Roy was looking up at the ceiling at the time that he walked off the edge of the hole in the floor. Mr. Roy testified that as part of his job duties, he was responsible for inspecting the work in the ceiling and expected that the Defendant had installed stairs in the hole in which he ultimately fell, and if he hadn’t, that he would have put up a guardrail around the floor opening. Continue reading
Do’s:
Boston Workers Compensation Lawyer Blog