Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XXI Chapter 152
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 11D (2026)

Earnings reports by employees; recovery of overpayments

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 11D. (1) Any employee entitled to receive weekly compensation under this chapter shall have an affirmative duty to report to the insurer all earnings, including wages or salary earned from self-employment. Insurers shall notify employees of said duty on a form approved by the department. Such form shall indicate that failure to report any earnings may subject the employee to civil or criminal penalties, and shall further indicate that failure to file an earnings report on a form approved by the department within thirty days of an insurer's request for such filing may result in the insurer's suspension of the employee's weekly benefits; provided, however, that no employee shall be required to file an earnings report more often than once every six months.

(2) An insurer in receipt of an earnings report indicating that overpayments have been made shall be entitled to recover such overpayments by unilateral reduction of weekly benefits, by no more than thirty percent per week, of any remaining compensation owed the employee; provided, however, that the reported earnings are of a kind that could have been considered in the computation of the employee's compensation rate. Where overpayments have been made that cannot be recovered in this manner, recoupment may be ordered pursuant to the filing of a complaint under section ten or by bringing an action against the employee in superior court.

(3) An insurer that has paid compensation pursuant to a conference order, shall, upon receipt of a decision of an administrative judge or a court of the commonwealth which indicates that overpayments have been made be entitled to recover such overpayments by unilateral reduction of weekly benefits, by no more than thirty percent per week, of any remaining compensation owed the employee. Where overpayments have been made that cannot be recovered in this manner, recoupment may be ordered pursuant to the filing of a complaint pursuant to section ten or by bringing an action against the employee in superior court.

(4) Where an order of recoupment against an employee has not been fulfilled, and weekly benefits are owed to an employee under this chapter by an insurer other than that to which recoupment has been ordered, such insurer shall reduce by thirty percent said weekly benefits payable to the employee, and shall pay such thirty percent excess directly to the insurer to whom recoupment has been ordered, until full recovery has been made.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 2000–2013 · leading case: Home Depot v. Kardas, 958 N.E.2d 531 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Home Depot v. Kardas, 958 N.E.2d 531 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 5× “Although, as noted above, Home Depot was entitled under G. L. c. 152, § 11D, to bring an action directly in the Superior Court to obtain an order of recoupment, it did not pursue that avenue of relief in this case.”
Wadsworth's Case, 963 N.E.2d 1181 (Mass. 2012). · cites it 2× “152, § 10, or in the Superior Court under G. L. c. 152, § 11D, its claim may prevail only if recoupment is equitable in the circumstances, including but not limited to the equitable defense of laches.”
Alves's Case, 884 N.E.2d 468 (Mass. 2008). “17 (2004), addresses the issue of a statute of limitations applicable to G. L. c. 152, § 11D (3), only in dicta, as the insurer never sought an order pursuant to the statutory provision and thus it was not an issue in the case.”
Richards's Case, 819 N.E.2d 604 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “at 277 ); the insurer never sought or obtained a recoupment order pursuant to G. L. c. 152, § 11D(3); and the insurer has since lost the ability to seek recoupment of those payments.”
Murphy's Case, 759 N.E.2d 754 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 152, § 11D(2), (3). The exercise of discretion requires fact finding, cf.”
Murphy's Case, 761 N.E.2d 998 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). “G. L. c. 152, § 11D(1), as inserted by St.”
Associated Indus. of Massachusetts Mut. Ins. v. Hough, 998 N.E.2d 789 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 5× “27, 31 (2011) (recognizing that, in addition to being able to pursue recoupment administratively, insurer is “entitled under G. L. c. 152, § 11D, to bring an action directly in the Superior Court to obtain an order of recoupment”).”
Conroy's Case, 809 N.E.2d 1069 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “G. L. c. 152, § 11D(3). 9 By appealing the conference order, the hospital was, in effect, asserting the position that the administrative judge erred in failing to discontinue the employee’s benefits from, at the very least, the date of the conference order denying its complaint.”
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. v. Acton Chiropractic, Inc., 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 177 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “The statute provides in relevant part: An insurer that has paid compensation pursuant to a conference order shall, upon receipt of a decision of an administrative judge or a court of the commonwealth which indicates that overpayment has been made be entitled to reduction of…”
Aerovox, Inc. v. Arsenio, 12 Mass. L. Rptr. 302 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000). · cites it 3× “According to the Attorney General, recoupment is available under G.L.c. 152, §11D(3). 5 Thus, the Attorney General maintains that Aerovóx’s interests can be vindicated by a final judgment, and there has been no showing of irreparable harm warranting injunctive relief.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 11D(1) — 1 case
Murphy's Case, 761 N.E.2d 998 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). “G. L. c. 152, § 11D(1), as inserted by St.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 11D(2) — 1 case
Murphy's Case, 759 N.E.2d 754 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). “See G. L. c. 152, § 11D(2), (3). The exercise of discretion requires fact finding, cf.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 11D(3) — 7 cases
Home Depot v. Kardas, 958 N.E.2d 531 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). “Although, as noted above, Home Depot was entitled under G. L. c. 152, § 11D, to bring an action directly in the Superior Court to obtain an order of recoupment, it did not pursue that avenue of relief in this case.”
Richards's Case, 819 N.E.2d 604 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “at 277 ); the insurer never sought or obtained a recoupment order pursuant to G. L. c. 152, § 11D(3); and the insurer has since lost the ability to seek recoupment of those payments.”
Associated Indus. of Massachusetts Mut. Ins. v. Hough, 998 N.E.2d 789 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). “27, 31 (2011) (recognizing that, in addition to being able to pursue recoupment administratively, insurer is “entitled under G. L. c. 152, § 11D, to bring an action directly in the Superior Court to obtain an order of recoupment”).”
Murphy's Case, 759 N.E.2d 754 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). “See G. L. c. 152, § 11D(2), (3). The exercise of discretion requires fact finding, cf.”
Conroy's Case, 809 N.E.2d 1069 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “G. L. c. 152, § 11D(3). 9 By appealing the conference order, the hospital was, in effect, asserting the position that the administrative judge erred in failing to discontinue the employee’s benefits from, at the very least, the date of the conference order denying its complaint.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.