Estate of Moulton v. Puopolo, 467 Mass. 478

Moulton, age 25, worked as a residential treatment counsellor at North Suffolk Mental Health Association, Inc. (North Suffolk), a charitable corporation.
While alone with resident Chappell, Chappell assaulted Moulton at North Suffolk’s Revere facility, causing her death.
Moulton’s estate filed a wrongful death action against North Suffolk’s director defendants, two psychiatric consultants, the Commonwealth, and Chappell, claiming willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, and gross negligence, seeking punitive damages and asserting a breach of fiduciary duty.
Director defendants argued immunity under G. L. c. 152, § 24 (exclusive remedy) and lack of fiduciary duty exposure; the appeal was interlocutory.
Court held the director defendants were Moulton’s employer for purposes of the exclusive remedy; the wrongful death and punitive damages claims were barred; and the fiduciary duty claim against directors was not viable, with exclusive authority lying with the Attorney General for charitable governance under G. L. c. 12, § 8.
Case remanded with judgment entered for the director defendants on all claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether directors are immune under the Workers’ Compensation Act as Moulton’s employer.	Moulton’s estate seeks damages despite Act immunity.	Directors are employers under the Act and immune.	Yes; directors are immune as the employer."
Whether the Court may hear an interlocutory appeal about director immunity under present execution.	Immunity denial is appealable now.	Immunity issue collateral and appealable.	Permitted under present execution.
Whether directors are “employers” under the Act for purposes of exclusive remedy.	Directors acted as individuals, not as employers.	Directors, as board voting on policies, acted as North Suffolk’s employer.	Directors are employers for purposes of § 24; immune.
Whether the complaint states a viable breach of fiduciary duty by the directors.	Directors breached fiduciary duties to North Suffolk, employees, clients, and public.	Employer has no fiduciary duty to employee; no standing to sue for public/charity matters; conflict claims inadequately pled.	Dismissed; no fiduciary duty owed by directors to Moulton; Attorney General controls public-charity fiduciary issues.
Whether the employee wrongful death claim can proceed given the exclusive remedy provision.	Wrongful death is independent of workers’ comp.	Exclusive remedy bars wrongful death claims arising from employment.	barred; wrongful death claim dismissed.

Saab v. Massachusetts CVS Pharmacy, LLC, 452 Mass. 564 (Mass. 2008) (exclusive remedy precludes employee tort claims for act injuries)
Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 381 Mass. 545 (Mass. 1980) (definitions of exclusive remedy and waiver rights under § 24)
Berger v. H.P. Hood, Inc., 416 Mass. 652 (Mass. 1993) (broad exclusivity of workers’ compensation; waiver requirement)
Peerless Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 48 Mass. App. Ct. 551 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (wrongful death claims precluded by workers’ comp exclusivity)
Green v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 422 Mass. 551 (Mass. 1996) (employee status and “out of and in the course of employment” standard)
Harhen v. Brown, 431 Mass. 838 (Mass. 2000) (corporate governance; board acts as the corporation; director liability)
American Discount Corp. v. Kaitz, 348 Mass. 706 (Mass. 1965) (board decisions; corporate power exercised by directors)
Boston Athletic Ass’n v. International Marathons, Inc., 392 Mass. 356 (Mass. 1984) (agents of the corporation; acts of board and corporation are one)
Geller v. Allied-Lyons PLC, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 120 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997) (fiduciary duties of corporate directors)
Dillaway v. Burton, 256 Mass. 568 (Mass. 1926) (public protection role of Attorney General in charitable administration)