Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): entity ....” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) (2003). 2 . Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 24 (2003). 3 . In Count III of the State Complaint, Gomes named his employer, Ever Ready Trucking, Inc., and two of its principals as co-defendants, liable to Gomes for wrongful termination. That Count and those defendants were subsequently dismissed from the State Court action. 4 . Mass. General Laws ch. 152, § 24 acts as a waiver under the Worker's Compensation Act of any covered worker’s common law rights against his/her employer or co-workers for injuries sustained in furtherance of the employer's interests or in the course of employment, so-called compensable injuries. Doe v. Purity Supreme, Inc., 422 Mass. 563, 664 N.E.2d 815 (1996); cf. O’Connell v. Chasdi, 400 Mass. 686, 690, 511 N.E.2d 349, 351 (1987) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Gomes never filed a claim under the Act 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where a coworker commits an intentional tort not related to the interests of the employer  the policies behind the act would not be served by immunizing the coemployee (B) recognizing a tort for the intentional spoliation of evidence (C) holding intentional assault by coworker to be outside the course and scope of employment (D) holding that an employer who commits an intentional tort against his employee cannot claim that the act was accidental so that workers compensation is the employees exclusive remedy (E) holding that extending immunity to contractors under the act would not further the purpose behind the act
Output (English): holding that an employer who commits an intentional tort against his employee cannot claim that the act was accidental so that workers compensation is the employees exclusive remedy