Massachusetts High Court Adopts New Jurisdictional Test for Extra-Territorial Injuries

In a case of first impression, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the jurisdictional test for extra-territorial injuries employed by the review Board of the Department of Industrial Accidents (Department) was too narrow, that in its place a “sufficient significant contacts” test [see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 143.04[2][e] for an extensive discussion of the test] should be utilized, and that under the facts of the case, the Commonwealth had jurisdiction of a claim in which a Massachusetts resident had entered into an employment contract in Pennsylvania, and subsequently sustained back injuries while attempting to attach a loaded trailer to his truck at a location in Maine [Mendes’s Case, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 661 (Oct. 29, 2020)]. The Board’s test —which ordinarily required either the injury or the place of hire be within the Commonwealth —was accordingly discarded.

Background

The claimant, Mendes, is a Massachusetts resident who entered into an employment contract, performed much of the work, and was injured all outside the Commonwealth. After protracted administrative proceedings in the Department of Industrial Accidents (Department), his claim for workers’ compensation ultimately was denied and dismissed by the department’s reviewing board (Board), which determined that the department lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. The claimant appealed from that determination to the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.

Jurisdictional Precedents

The Court noted that while the Massachusetts Act stated that it applies to employees who receive a work-related injury “whether within or without the commonwealth” [Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 26], it did not specify its jurisdictional limits. The Court had long recognized, however, that the quoted language was intended to enlarge, not restrict, the scope of the Act.

The Court added that earlier it had interpreted the provision to grant Massachusetts jurisdiction over a claim where the employment contract was made in the Commonwealth even if the injury occurred elsewhere [see McLaughlin’s Case, 274 Mass. 217, 220, 174 N.E. 338 (1931)]. The Court had also held that Massachusetts could exercise jurisdiction over a claim when the injury occurred in the Commonwealth even if the employment contract was entered into elsewhere [see Lavoie’s Case, 334 Mass. at 403, 135 N.E.2d 750 (1956)]. However, the Court apparently had not had an earlier occasion to consider whether jurisdiction occurred in circumstances where the Commonwealth was neither the place of hire nor the place of injury, although the board had done so [see Carlin’s Case, 3 Mass. Workers’ Comp. Rep. 41, 42 (1989)].

Test Used by the Board

The Court noted further that the Board had considered an alternative test to determine jurisdiction —the “place of the employment relation.” As framed by the Board, the place of the employment relation is the place of hire, unless something has happened to transfer the employment relation to another State. For example, the employment relation may be transferred from the place of hire if a new contract is formed in another State, or if the employee acquires “a fixed and non-temporary employment situs” in another State.

Board Had Taken a Narrow Approach

In the instant case, the Court indicated the Board appeared to have adopted a narrow of test for determining whether an employment relationship is located in Massachusetts. The board concluded that because Massachusetts was neither the place of hire nor the place of injury, the only way for the Commonwealth to have jurisdiction over the employee’s claim would be if “something happened” to transfer the relationship from the place of hire, Pennsylvania, to Massachusetts. Because the employee did not make such a showing, the board concluded that jurisdiction in the Commonwealth could not be established.

More Flexible Approach Required: “Sufficient Significant Contacts”

The Court stressed that given the remedial nature of the statute, and the mandate to broaden rather than restrict jurisdiction under the Act, a more flexible approach was necessary. Accordingly, the Court held, therefore, that jurisdiction to adjudicate a workers’ compensation claims lies in Massachusetts where there are sufficient significant contacts between the Commonwealth and the employment such that the employment can be said to be located in the Commonwealth. Consideration of the location of the employment relationship for jurisdictional purposes more accurately embodies the intent of the Legislature because it better reflects the reality of the geographical mobility of large segments of workers.

The Court added that although determining the location of the employment relationship would depend upon the facts of each case, relevant considerations may include:

• Whether the employee is a resident of the Commonwealth;
• The employer’s contacts with and presence in the Commonwealth;
• Whether the employee was recruited or hired in the Commonwealth;
• Whether and under what conditions the employee is able, or expected, to return to the Commonwealth between assignments; and
• Whether the employer procured workers’ compensation insurance in Massachusetts.

Evaluating Claimant’s Contacts

Evaluating the contacts between the claimant’s employment and the Commonwealth, the Court observed that prior to and during his employment, the claimant was a Massachusetts resident who was licensed by the Commonwealth to drive commercial vehicles, including tractor-trailers. He learned of the position with the employer by way of an advertisement placed in a local Massachusetts newspaper. During the course of his employment, the claimant drove the employer’s tractor-trailer thousands of miles in Massachusetts, more than he drove in any other State except Pennsylvania. Further, the claimant had employment-related contact with Massachusetts on almost one-half (46.6%) of the days he worked for the employer, more than with any other State. He picked up tons of goods from, and delivered tons of goods to, the employer’s Massachusetts customers. Among other factors, the Court noted that after sustaining his injury, the claimant returned to Massachusetts for medical care.

Considering the foregoing, the Court held there were sufficient significant contacts between Massachusetts and the claimant’s employment such that the employment relationship was located in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth had jurisdiction over the claimant’s claim. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case to the department for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.