Howell v. Sheriff of Essex Cnty.

101 Mass.App.Ct. 542

194 N.E.3d 699

Jeffrey HOWELL

v.SHERIFF OF ESSEX COUNTY.

No. 21-P-397

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Argued March 9, 2022

Decided August 19, 2022

Stephen C. Pfaff, Boston, for the defendant.

Jamie Goodwin, for the plaintiff.

Present: Rubin, Singh, & Hershfang, JJ.

HERSHFANG, J.

The plaintiff, former Essex County sheriff's department employee Jeffrey Howell, was injured while carrying equipment for an ongoing prisoner hostage situation. The question before us is whether his injury qualifies him for payments under the so-called "assault pay" or "violence pay" provision of the General Laws. That provision entitles certain correctional employees who, "while in the performance of duty, receive[ ] bodily injuries resulting from acts of violence of patients or prisoners in [their] custody" to payments equal to their full salaries. G. L. c. 126, § 18A. A Superior Court judge granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and awarded him $173,723.89 in damages. Because we agree that the plaintiff's injury "resulted from" an inmate's act of violence "while in the performance of duty," and that the plaintiff's assault pay should not be offset by the value of sick leave he redeemed, we affirm.

Background. The material facts are undisputed. On January 2, 2018, the plaintiff was working in the 120 building of the Essex County correctional facility when, in a different building, one inmate took another hostage by holding a razor blade to his neck. Another officer, elsewhere in the 120 building, called the plaintiff to help carry a metal footlocker downstairs so its contents could be used to address the hostage situation; in doing so, the plaintiff injured his shoulder. The plaintiff returned to the control room in the 120 building while the other officer continued on, presumably bringing the footlocker to the scene. As a result of his shoulder injury, the plaintiff was unable to work.

The plaintiff began receiving bi-weekly workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to G. L. c. 152, § 34, but did not receive assault pay pursuant to G. L. c. 126, § 18A, or G. L. c. 30, § 58, a similar statute.¹ Beginning in July 2018, the plaintiff depleted his accrued sick leave to supplement his workers’ compensation benefits. Between July 2018 and his termination in March 2019, the plaintiff redeemed sick pay in addition to his workers’ compensation payments; the bi-weekly total was less than his full salary. The plaintiff redeemed a total of $14,899.79 in sick leave; for the same period, his assault pay would have been $49,780.84.

Discussion. "Through G. L. c. 126, § 18A, and G. L. c. 30, § 58, the Legislature has afforded correction officers additional compensation to close the gap between workers’ compensation benefits and an employee's salary if the employee sustains bodily injury as a result of inmate violence during the course of his or her duties." Modica v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, 477 Mass. 102, 102, 74 N.E.3d 1233 (2017). The pertinent portion of § 18A provides:

"An employee in a jail or house of correction of a county who, while in the performance of duty, receives bodily injuries resulting from acts of violence of patients or prisoners in his custody, and who as a result of such injury is entitled to benefits under [G. L. c. 152 (the workers’ compensation statute)], shall be paid, in addition to the benefits of [G. L. c. 152], the difference between the weekly cash benefits to which he is entitled under [G. L. c. 152] and his regular salary, without such absence being charged against available sick leave credits."

The relevant portion of § 58 uses parallel language.²

a. Assault pay. "We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, and in doing so examine ‘whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ " Masonic Temple Ass'n of Quincy, Inc. v. Patel, 489 Mass. 549, 553, 185 N.E.3d 888 (2022), quoting Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120, 571 N.E.2d 357 (1991). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002). To be entitled to assault pay, "a correction officer must show (1) bodily injury (2) resulting from an act of violence (3) committed by a prisoner who was (4) in the plaintiff's custody and (5) resulting in the plaintiff being entitled to worker's compensation." Modica, 477 Mass. at 104, 74 N.E.3d 1233. The defendant asserts that the judge erred in granting the plaintiff summary judgment because the plaintiff's injury did not result from an act of violence by a prisoner.

The plaintiff injured his shoulder while carrying equipment needed to address the hostage situation. Because of the inmate's violent act of taking a hostage, the plaintiff carried the footlocker down the stairs. Because he carried the footlocker down the stairs, he suffered a shoulder injury. Thus, the plaintiff sustained an injury resulting from an act of inmate violence. Our case law makes clear that the plaintiff need not have been in the presence of the violent inmate when he injured his shoulder, and that the inmate need not have directed his violent act at the plaintiff, for the injury to have "resulted from" the inmate's act of violence. See Conroy v. Boston, 392 Mass. 216, 218-219, 465 N.E.2d 775 (1994) (assault pay awarded to correction officer who injured his knee while chasing inmate attempting to escape; Legislature "did not limit the application of [the statute] to cases involving acts of violence directed against an employee or accompanied by physical contact between a ... prisoner and an employee"). See also Presby v. Commissioners of Bristol County, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 902, 905, 868 N.E.2d 949 (2007) (assault pay awarded to correction officer who sustained injury while running toward fighting inmates). Emphasizing that the plaintiff was not on his way to the hostage-taking when he sustained his injury, the defendant contends that the injury was too remote to have "resulted from" the prisoner's violent act. But the officer was responding urgently, in real time, to the immediate need caused by a prisoner holding another hostage with a razor at his throat, linkage well within the ambit of the statute, the limits of which are not implicated by these facts.

The workers’ compensation act is "a remedial statute and should be given a broad interpretation, viewed in light of its purpose and to ‘promote the accomplishment of its beneficent design.’ " Neff v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Indus. Accs., 421 Mass. 70, 73, 653 N.E.2d 556 (1995), quoting Young v. Duncan, 218 Mass. 346, 349, 106 N.E. 1 (1914). And while G. L. c. 30, § 58, and G. L. c. 126, § 18A, are not part of the workers’ compensation act, both supplement that act's remedial provisions by providing even greater benefits to certain injured workers; "assault pay and workers’ compensation are related benefits." Marchand v. Department of Correction, 475 Mass. 1006, 1008, 55 N.E.3d 964 (2016). Therefore, we interpret the language of §§ 58 and 18A broadly to effectuate their remedial purposes. See O'Connell’s Case, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 761, 765-766, 942 N.E.2d 988 (2011) (interpreting workers’ compensation act consistently with unemployment insurance act where they "provide parallel worker protection schemes"). See generally Boswell v. Zephyr Lines, Inc., 414 Mass. 241, 247, 606 N.E.2d 1336 (1993) (courts should look to related statutes for interpretive guidance "so as to give rise to a consistent body of law"); Polaroid Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 393 Mass. 490, 497, 472 N.E.2d 259 (1984) ("words of a statute must be construed in association with other statutory language and the general statutory plan").

Guided by both the remedial nature of the statutes and by precedent, we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff's injury "resulted from" an inmate's act of violence, entitling the plaintiff to assault pay.

b. Sick pay. Our holding requires us to determine whether the plaintiff's assault pay must be reduced by the accrued sick pay he used. The defendant asserts that the sick pay must offset the assault pay because, if it does not, then the sheriff's department will have compensated the plaintiff at a rate higher than his salary. The defendant's position is inconsistent with the language of the statutes; §§ 18A and 58 state that an employee entitled to assault pay will receive full pay "without such absence being charged against available sick leave credits" (emphasis added). We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo, see Hovagimian v. Concert Blue Hill, LLC, 488 Mass. 237, 240, 172 N.E.3d 728 (2021), and conclude that the plaintiff's assault pay should not be offset by his redeemed sick pay.

"When construing a statute, we look at the language as a whole, and ‘strive to give effect to each word’ " (quotation omitted). Berg v. Ciampa, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 569, 571, 180 N.E.3d 1010 (2021), quoting Commonwealth v. Vigiani, 488 Mass. 34, 36, 170 N.E.3d 1135 (2021). "A fundamental tenet of statutory interpretation is that statutory language should be given effect consistent with its plain meaning and in light of the aim of the Legislature unless to do so would achieve an illogical result." Rahim v. District Attorney for the...