St. Germaine v. Pendergast

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that spouses’ claims for loss of consortium are equally barred by “exclusive remedy” section of Workers’ Compensation Act.
• holding that “spouses, children and parents are equally entitled to bring loss of consortium claims, and those claims are equally barred where the injury is compensable under” the Act
• concluding that Act bars all loss of consortium suits based on injuries covered by Act
• discussing, and rejecting, contention that the State Building Code created a “new duty” on homeowners making them directly liable in damages for violations of the Code
• discussing how G. L. c. 231, § 85X, creating cause of action for loss of filial consortium, was enacted as direct legislative response to Norman v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 403 Mass. 303, 308 [1988], which declined to recognize right of recovery for such loss
• spouses, children and parents barred from recovering for lack of consortium by exclusivity provision in workers’ compensation statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).