Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 23 (2026)

Release of claims or demands at common law

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 23. If an employee files any claim or accepts payment of compensation on account of personal injury under this chapter, or submits to a proceeding before the department under sections ten to twelve, inclusive, such action shall constitute a release to the insurer of all claims or demands at common law, if any, arising from the injury. If an employee accepts payment of compensation under this chapter on account of personal injury or makes an agreement under section forty-eight, such action shall constitute a release to the insured of all claims or demands at common law, if any, arising from the injury.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 74 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1928–2025 · leading case: Berger v. H.P. Hood, Inc., 624 N.E.2d 947 (Mass. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Berger v. H.P. Hood, Inc., 624 N.E.2d 947 (Mass. 1993). · cites it 6× “At issue is whether the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, G. L. c. 152, § 23 (1992 ed.), bars an employee’s claim against the owner and the insurer of the employer’s motor vehicles for underinsurance benefits (UM).”

Maxwell v. AIG Dom. Claims, Inc., 950 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 5× “*110 Given this case law, it is unsurprising that AIGDC’s first two arguments regarding workers’ compensation exclusivity focus on the purposes of the workers’ compensation act rather than on statutory languagé.”

Decker v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 389 Mass. 35 (Mass. 1983). · cites it 4× “8 Specifically, they argue that the exclusivity provisions of G.”

Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 413 N.E.2d 711 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 2× “See G.L.c. 152, § 23. Cf. G.L.c. 152, § 15. [7] See text, supra at 548.”

Kniskern v. Melkonian, 862 N.E.2d 450 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “The issues presented in the instant case concern the scope of G. L. c. 152, § 23, the exclusivity provision in the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act).”

Wentworth v. Henry C. Becker Custom Bldg. Ltd., 947 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 3× “We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review in order to determine whether, pursuant to G. L. c. 152, § 23, a general contractor that pays workers’ compensation benefits to an employee of an uninsured subcontractor is immune from liability for common-law…”

Fraco Prods., Ltd. v. Bostonian Masonry Corp., 995 N.E.2d 1125 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 5× “See G. L. c. 152, § 23. 5 Consequently, Fraco filed a third-party complaint against Bostonian seeking (i) contribution and (ii) indemnification on theories of contractual and common-law indemnity.”

Barrett v. Rodgers, 562 N.E.2d 480 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 3× “This case requires us once again to mark out the contours of the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, G. L. c. 152, §§ 23, 24 (1988 ed.). Specifically, we must determine whether an individual may successfully sue her employer for damages incurred in a single…”

Certain Interested Underwriters v. Stolberg, 680 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2012). “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 23 . In all events, this holding post-dates the issuance of the CGL policy and, thus, could not have had any bearing on the reason for including the exclusion in the policy.”

Spellman v. Shawmut Woodworking & Supply, Inc., 445 Mass. 675 (Mass. 2006). · cites it 2× “We have a situation where, because Spellman collected workers’ compensation benefits, the plaintiffs are barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act from directly suing East Coast for negligence.”

Longever v. Revere Copper & Brass Inc., 408 N.E.2d 857 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 2× “The second defense was that the complaint failed to “state a *222 claim upon which relief can be granted” and the sixth defense was that the defendant “is immune from liability in this action pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act set forth in…”

Correia v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 446 N.E.2d 1033 (Mass. 1983). “Our holding was premised on the fact that, under G.L. c. 152, § 23, an employee who accepts compensation benefits from an employer releases that employer from all claims of liability that the employee might have as a result of his accident.”

Show all 74 citing cases →

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.