The City of Malden, Massachusetts has filed suit seeking to overturn an arbitration award that ordered it to provide injured-on-duty benefits to a firefighter who experienced back problems several months after reporting an injury at an emergency incident. The city claims the arbitrator exceeded her authority under the collective bargaining agreement and issued an award that would require the city to violate state law.

The suit was filed in Middlesex County Superior Court naming IAFF Local 902 as the defendant. At issue is an arbitration award issued on September 2, 2026, involving firefighter [name withheld – FF Doe] and her eligibility for injured-on-duty (IOD) benefits under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41, Section 111F.

According to the complaint, FF Doe reported injuring her lower back on May 4, 2024, while lifting a woman who had fallen at a nursing home. She was subsequently placed on IOD leave for two shifts that month.

On January 14, 2025, FF Doe responded to an emergency involving an unconscious, obese woman. Two days later, she submitted an injury report indicating that she experienced lower back pain following the incident. However, she indicated that she did not require medical attention and did not seek treatment at that time.

On March 25, 2025, FF Doe underwent an annual physical examination with her primary care physician. According to the city, the examination revealed no complaints of back pain, and her physician documented a normal back examination. Her medical history included back surgery performed when she was 16 years old.

FF Doe subsequently sought medical treatment for back pain on May 13, 2025. According to the complaint, her medical records indicated that she believed the pain was related to hardware implanted during her earlier surgery. She reportedly denied sustaining any other back injuries. An X-ray revealed that a screw associated with the previous surgery was either missing or no longer visible.

On July 10, 2025, FF Doe called in sick, identifying her absence as illness rather than an injury sustained on duty. Further medical evaluation revealed a disc herniation. Steroid injections were recommended but proved unsuccessful, and surgery was scheduled for October 3, 2025.

On July 29, 2025, FF Doe contacted Fire Chief Stephen Froio and requested that her July 10 sick leave be reclassified as injured-on-duty leave. Chief Froio reviewed the department’s records and located the injury report from January 2025. However, since FF Doe had not provided medical documentation establishing that her current back condition was related to that incident, Chief Froio denied the request.

IAFF Local 902 filed a grievance on August 14, 2025, challenging the denial of IOD leave and payment of medical expenses. The city denied the grievance, and the union pursued arbitration.

Following a hearing on June 9, 2026, Arbitrator Mary Jeanne Tufano issued a decision on September 2, 2026, concluding that the city violated the CBA by denying FF Doe’s IOD benefits.

A significant factor in the arbitrator’s decision was a February 22, 2026, letter from Dr. Adrian Thomas, who opined that FF Doe’s injury more likely than not occurred in the performance of her duties as a firefighter.

The arbitrator ordered the city to restore all paid leave FF Doe used beginning July 10, 2025, through her return to work, reclassify her compensation during that period as IOD leave, and compensate her for shifts she worked to repay firefighters who had covered her shifts during her absence.

The city contends that the arbitrator improperly relied on Dr. Thomas’s opinion, which was drafted nearly seven months after Chief Froio denied FF Doe’s request. According to the complaint, the physician’s letter did not explain the medical basis for his conclusion and failed to address the March 2025 physical examination documenting no back problems.

The city also claims it was not afforded an opportunity to obtain supplemental medical records or additional medical opinions concerning Dr. Thomas’s conclusions.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41, Section 111F provides paid injury leave to firefighters and police officers who are incapacitated because of injuries sustained in the performance of their duties without fault of their own. The Malden collective bargaining agreement incorporates the statutory requirements governing eligibility for those benefits.

The city maintains that FF Doe failed to establish that her back condition resulted from an injury sustained in the performance of her duties. It argues that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by ordering the city to provide benefits that FF Doe was not entitled to receive under Section 111F.

The complaint also challenges the arbitrator’s authority to order the city to retroactively classify FF Doe’s compensation as tax-exempt IOD pay. The city contends that doing so would violate state law because FF Doe had not established that her condition qualified for IOD benefits.

In addition, the city argues that the arbitrator exceeded the authority granted by the collective bargaining agreement, which expressly provides:

• “The Arbitrator shall be without power to alter, amend, add to or subtract from the express language of this Agreement.”

The city maintains that because the agreement incorporates the requirements of Section 111F, the arbitrator could not disregard those requirements when determining FF Doe’s eligibility.

The city also challenges the arbitrator’s order requiring it to compensate FF Doe for shifts she worked to repay firefighters who had covered her absences. The city maintains that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by interfering with management rights reserved under the collective bargaining agreement. The two-count complaint seeks to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 150C, Section 11(a)(3), which authorizes courts to vacate arbitration awards when arbitrators exceed their authority or issue awards requiring conduct prohibited by state or federal law.

Here is a copy of the complaint.