- This application for accidental disability retirement benefits is denied because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he was unable to perform the essential duties of his job on his last day of work. Vest v. CRAB, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 191 (1996). After retirement for superannuation, the Petitioner lived an active lifestyle until several years later when he developed atrial fibrillation.
- Accidental disability claim. Medical panel evaluation was improper because the Panel failed to consider or did not have job accommodation information that Mr. Balboni could avoid strenuous tasks. The panel also failed to consider or did not have some pertinent medical reports. Case remanded to same medical panel or to convene a new medical panel if unable to re-convene same medical panel.
- The Petitioner is not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits because he failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to causation where his four work-related injuries resulted in a temporary aggravation of his underlying disabling cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease.
Anthony Bonanno v. Massachusetts Port Authority Employees' Retirement System, CR-05-1304 (DALA, 2008)The Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied as his disability did not arise from a personal injury but rather his mental condition was attributable to bona fide personnel actions.
- Petitioner is entitled to be examined by a medical panel in connection with his application for accidental disability retirement benefits based on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and major depression with psychotic features because his application articulates a prima facie case for an award.
- The case is remanded to the medical panel to explain its negative response with respect to disability. The panel employed an erroneous standard because there was no dispute that the essential duties of the Petitioner's job as a Corrections Officer required her to be able to lift up to 100 pounds and restrain prisoners, and the numbness in her arm prevented her from performing these duties.
- The respondent Board of Retirement correctly denied the petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement. The petitioner failed to show that a job-related event or condition was the natural and proximate cause of his injury. The petitioner, nonetheless, did not engage in serious and willful misconduct by driving even though he had a history of seizures.
- The Petitioner, who had minimal training for the position of municipal Treasurer/Collector, and, who was under varying degrees of stress throughout her tenure in office, did not meet her burden of proving that she sustained a personal injury with the purview of G..L. c. 32, s 7(1) or G.L. c. 152.
- The petitioner, who fell in the school parking lot on her way into work, was not eligible for accidental disability retirement benefits under G.L. c. 32, § 7, because she did not sustain her injuries while in the performance of her work duties.
- Building Inspector in Town of Norton applied for accidental disability retirement on the basis of an injury he sustained when he climbed over a full length counter/ barrier in order to reenter his office from an outside door, an injury not sustained while in the performance of his duties. Eighteen months later, in December 2006, he reinjured his back while getting out of a chair, a common movement which is not compensable under Section 7. The Petitioner continued to work on light duty after the December 2006 injury until he was placed on administrative leave on December 12, 2006. He was provided with a lawful reasonable accommodation.
- The Petitioner's claim is denied as the Medical Panel did not employ an erroneous standard when it concluded that his disabling condition was not such as might be the natural and proximate result of the personal injury claimed or hazard undergone on account of which retirement is claimed.
- The Petitioner's claim for accidental disability retirement benefits is denied. The Medical Panel did not err when it concluded that her incapacity is not such as might be the natural and proximate result of the personal injury sustained or hazard undergone on account of which retirement is claimed.
- The New Bedford Retirement System was correct to deny the Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits as the Medical Panel did not apply an erroneous standard when it concluded that Mr. DeBarros was not disabled from performing the essential duties of his position as a Plant Engineer with the New Bedford School Department.
- The Petitioner, who was injured in a fall while walking across the school parking lot into the school building on her way to work in the morning, was not injured "in the performance of her duties."
- Mental Retardation Worker I, who was kicked during night shift by violent client and sustained back and neck injuries, is entitled to new medical panel. The first medical panel lacked correct job description and pertinent medical MRI studies.
- This application for accidental disability retirement benefits is denied because the presumption raised under G. L. c. 32, s. 94 has been successfully rebutted by competent evidence, and the Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to causation under G. L. c. 32, s. 7(1).
- The Petitioner is not entitled to accidental disability retirement as she failed to meet her burden of proof to demonstrate that her disabling orthopedic condition is the proximate result of a personal injury sustained or hazard undergone as a result of, and while in the performance of her duties as required by G.L. c. 32, s. 7.
- A medical panel must be convened by a retirement board if an involuntary accidental disability retirement application is filed by a police commissioner on behalf of a police sergeant, where an examining doctor found that the sergeant was unable to perform the essential duties of his job, that the disability is likely to be permanent, and that the disability is job-related. A retirement board may not substitute its judgment for that of a properly convened medical panel, even where the sergeant wished to have a fourth surgery and attempt to return to work.
- Petitioner, who was an Intermittent Police Officer in the Town of Oxford, was not a member in service. He is not entitled to a medical panel examination for his accidental disability claim.
- The two deaths and one suicide attempt in the Petitioner’s department do not constitute personal injuries because the events did not occur while the Petitioner was in the performance of his duties and the Petitioner did not witness the events. When considered as part of the series of events claimed by the Petitioner, none of which constitutes a personal injury, the series of events does not become a personal injury. Furthermore, the medical panel did not certify that the deaths and suicide attempt were causative of the Petitioner’s disability.
- Petitioner, a former bilingual education teacher in the Boston Public Schools, is not entitled to accidental disability retirement on the basis of job-related anxiety and depression, as she failed to prove that the job-related events that she cited were not common and necessary to all or a great many occupations. Further, she has a life long history of conflicts in personal relationships that are not work related.
- Respondent's decision to deny application for accidental disability retirement benefits without convening a medical panel is reversed. Petitioner's application supported by a valid physician statement meets threshold requirements for convening a medical panel.
- The Petitioner is entitled to have the issue of causation determined by a Regional Medical Panel. The case is remanded for the convening of a Medical Panel to examine the Petitioner with respect to his claim for accidental disability retirement.
- Mr. Gendron was awarded an earlier effective date of accidental disability retirement. He filed for accidental disability retirement on January 11, 2006. He last received regular compensation on his date of injury, November 24, 2004. As per G.L. c. 32, s. 7(2), the effective date of retirement is six months prior to his filing for retirement, July 11, 2005, and not what the Worcester Retirement System awarded as of July 31, 2006, which was based on a time period when he did not receive regular compensation but was kept on the payroll.
- The Petitioner, a van driver of children with developmental disabilities, has proven that she is entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits after sustaining a disabling shoulder injury during repetitive pulling of a defective door in order to open and shut it over the course of an entire work day. The Petitioner has also successfully proven that the accommodations offered by the employer were not reasonable in her case.
- Accidental disability claim involving a back condition. A medical panel was convened despite no physician statement filed in support of the claim. In finding no disability from plumber work, the panel failed to adequately consider the job description's essential duties setting forth strenuous tasks. The panel also failed to address test results and other medical evaluations concerning Mr. Gordon's back condition. Case remanded for a new medical panel once Mr. Gordon files a physician statement in support of his claim.
- Accidental disability claim. The medical panel answered the certificate finding no disability, but failed to address the heavy work tasks that were part of the essential duties of Ms. Gosselin-Connell's janitor job. She was injured while undertaking a strenuous task. The medical panel also failed to address an aggravation theory of causation. She had a pre-existing degenerative condition in her cervical spine and had prior shoulder surgery. Medical evidence demonstrated a failure to consider all pertinent medical information. The case was remanded for the convening of a new medical panel.
- Police Officer denied accidental disability benefits because there was no compensable personal injury. He was injured in a car accident on his way to start overtime duty while driving to the location in his own car and was not in the performance of any police duty. His appeal was timely filed. He never received the retirement board's decision letter since he was not at his home. When another copy of it was mailed to his counsel, an appeal was filed within the next fifteen days by his counsel.
- The State Board of Retirement was correct to deny the Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits as the Medical Panel did not apply an erroneous standard when it concluded that Mr. Hickney was not disabled from performing the essential duties of his position as a Correction Officer with the Department of Correction.
- Where a retirement board grants a voluntary accidental disability retirement pursuant to the application of a member, a department head's appeal of a retirement board's action on his involuntary accidental disability retirement application filed on behalf of the member is moot.
- This case is remanded to the medical panel to consider the aggravation theory of causation where the panel failed to consider whether the Petitioner’s work-related injury might have aggravated his pre-existing cervical arthritis to the point of total and permanent disability.
- Police officer denied accidental disability benefits. The medical panel answered the certificate in the negative finding no disability from performing her essential police duties, and finding she had sufficiently recovered from her work injury to return to full police duties without a significant risk of re-injury.
- Claim that working in a cluttered working environment aggravated her back injuries to point of disability insufficient because these were the kinds of activities that are common to many occupations. Sitting at desks for long time periods, or bending over to reach work materials, or reaching to answer the telephone, even if done in a cluttered space, does not rise to the level of a compensable personal injury under Section 7(1) even if the worker succumbs to the activities performed day after day. Such activities are simply common activities performed by many workers in various occupations and are also common activities of daily life.
- Petitioner has not met his burden of establishing that his disability was the natural and proximate result of the incident on account of which retirement was claimed.
- The decision of the Worcester County Retirement Board denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits pursuant to M.G.L. c. 32, § 7 without convening a medical panel is vacated. The petitioner presented sufficient evidence that, if unrebutted and believed, would allow a factfinder to conclude that she suffered a permanent disability based upon emotional injuries sustained while performing her duties as town treasurer/collector that were not the result of bona fide personnel action and is therefore entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits. She is therefore entitled to be examined by a medical panel before her accidental disability retirement benefits application is denied. The Board is ordered to convene a regional medical panel of psychiatrists and consider the panel’s certification (and report, if the Board requests that the panel prepare one), before determining whether her benefits application should be denied or granted.
- Petitioner is not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits because she was not disabled by low back pain on her last day of work; she left work because of sexual harassment.
- The decision of the Teacher’s Retirement System to deny this application for accidental disability retirement benefits is affirmed because the Petitioner has not established that he was psychiatrically disabled on his last day of work, and because the Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to causation. The actions of the Principal that the Petitioner cites as causative of his psychiatric disability were not personal injuries, but were bona fide personnel actions that are specifically excluded from the definition of personal injury found in G. L. c. 152, s. 1(7A). The Petitioner did not demonstrate an identifiable condition of employment not common and necessary to all or a great many occupations that caused his disability through gradual deterioration.
- Medical panel did not lack pertinent facts or apply an erroneous standard when it determined that the petitioner was not incapable of performing his essential duties as a maintenance repairman at a power plant. The medical panel properly assessed his job duties and ascertained the nature of his symptoms.
- The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted on the grounds that the Petitioner’s claim for an accidental disability retirement based on a psychological/psychiatric condition has been litigated and decided in the matters of McGrath v. Saugus Retirement Board, CR-03-722 and McGrath v. Saugus Retirement Board, CR-05-106.
- Petitioner did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to Section 7 retirement benefits. The medical panel found that his disability was caused by his pre-existing condition and that the performance of his job duties did not exacerbate the condition.
Aureilo Morales v. Holyoke Retirement Board & Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC), CR-06-649 (DALA, 2008)Cafeteria worker denied accidental disability benefits after a medical panel answered the certificate in the affirmative, because no compensable personal injury was found. Mr. Morales was not in the performance of his duties when a bathroom door struck and badly hurt his thumb as he left the bathroom after a break before returning to his work in the cafeteria.
- The Petitioner, a former police officer retired on an orthopedic disability, failed to prove that he was disabled due to a cardiac condition prior to his retirement. His Section 94 application under the Heart Law is denied
- Accidental disability awarded for a permanently disabling psychiatric condition based on specific incidents at work as a correction officer involving harassment and retaliation against her after she reported to her superiors misconduct by fellow correction officers and inmates. Her employer recognized these incidents occurred. The medical panel answered the certificate in the affirmative. She had no pre-existing psychiatric condition. The initial reported incidents occurred ten years prior to the incident that led to her filing for retirement again involving correction officer and inmate misconduct. The panel diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depressive reaction. Other medical evidence supported the ultimate causation determination.
- After a medical panel had been convened answering the certificate in the affirmative, a teacher was denied accidental disability benefits because she did not suffer a compensable personal injury when she was struck by a car on her way to a parking lot to drive home after attending off-site required training. She was not in the performance of her duties as she had ended her work day at the time of injury.
- The Boston Retirement Board was correct in using the Petitioner's base salary from his Collective Bargaining Agreement on the date of his injury for the purpose of calculating his accidental disability retirement benefit.
- The case is remanded to the Board to convene a newly composed medical panel to evaluate the Petitioner because one panel physician failed to perform a physical examination of the Petitioner, and because both physicians in the panel majority failed to consider the risk of re-injury to the Petitioner when answering in the negative with respect to the existence of a disability.
- Matter remanded to an all-new medical panel after original panel completed its evaluation days prior to the Petitioner's undergoing a critical MRI evaluation. Ergo, the first panel was deprived of pertinent medical facts.
- Petitioner is entitled to accidental disability retirement by virtue of a mental disability. His disability was proven to be the result of a gradual deterioration following repeated exposures to life threatening circumstances over several years of firefighting.
- The Petitioner was not entitled to have a medical panel examine him based on his claim for accidental disability retirement benefits as he failed to assert that he was disabled based on a personal injury received during the course of his employment.
- Police officer denied accidental disability after a medical panel answered the certificate in the affirmative. He fell in a hallway at the police station on his way to leave work for the day, carrying work papers he was bringing to his car. The fall was not a compensable personal injury that occurred while he was in the performance of his duties.
- The Petitioner was not entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits as he failed to establish that he was disabled as a result of an injury or hazard received at work.
- After an administrative hearing in 2006, the Petitioner was deemed to be entitled to a Medical Panel and the matter was remanded to the local board. A Medical Panel was convened and answered the Certificate in the affirmative. The local Board again denied the application. Summary Decision is not appropriate where the issues for determination in this appeal are different and there are significant issues of material fact.
- The Revere Retirement Board shall grant accidental disability retirement benefits to the Petitioner because he has sustained his burden of proving that his permanently disabling left knee condition is the natural and proximate result of a personal injury sustained while in the performance of his duties.
- The Petitioner is entitled to have the effective date of his retirement made retroactive to November 30, 2005, the last date that he received regular compensation. The payments made to the Petitioner subsequent to November 20, 2005 were not sick leave benefits but rather a return of his own money in the form of health insurance premiums.
- The Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied as his disability arose not from a personal injury but rather from bona fide personnel actions taken by his employer.
- The record of medical and non-medical facts supports the conclusion of a majority of the medical panel that the Petitioner's disabling spinal stenosis was the natural and proximate result of the lifting injury of July 5, 1996 because the event aggravated his pre-existing asymptomatic spinal stenosis into a symptomatic and disabling condition.
- Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits was properly denied without convening a medical panel because the Petitioner was not injured while in the performance of her duties. She was injured on her way into work before the start of her work day.
- Petitioner is entitled to an all new medical panel because the first panel did not have all of the pertinent medical facts, including the complete medical file. Further, the panel made no reference to the high risk, physically demanding job duties of a Correction Officer II at Bridgewater State Hospital.
- The case is remanded to the medical panel to reconsider the issue of disability in light of the risk of re-injury to the Petitioner, using the standard enunciated by CRAB in the case of Filipek v. Bristol Cty. Retirement Board, CR-03-672. If the Petitioner wants to pursue a psychiatric claim for benefits, he must file a new application.
- This matter is remanded to the same Medical Panel with instructions to review the report concerning the facet joint injections administered to the Petitioner after the initial Panel examination. After reviewing that report, the Medical Panel should then re-address the first certificate question concerning disability to determine whether it arrives at a different response or whether it re-affirms its original conclusion.
- The Board’s decision to deny this application for accidental disability retirement benefits without convening a medical panel is affirmed because the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she was disabled on her last day of work by her claimed injuries. The Board may terminate the proceedings and deny the application if the member cannot be retired as a matter of law.
- The Petitioner, a former construction handyman, did not meet his burden of proving that he is totally disabled following a minor shoulder injury in 2002. The 2007 medical panel performed its function properly, and, the panel findings cannot be overturned.
- The Petitioner, a retired employee of the Hampden County Sheriff's Office, is not entitled to benefits under the Heart Law, G.L. c. 32, s. 94 as the 2007 amendment providing for such benefits to county correctional officers cannot be applied retroactively.
- The Petitioner is entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits as he did suffer a personal injury when he jumped down from a moving fire truck.
People also viewed...
You recently viewed...
Personalization is OFF. Your personal browsing history at Mass.gov is not visible because your personalization is turned off. To view your history, turn your personalization on.
Learn more on our .
*Recommendations are based on site visitor traffic patterns and are not endorsements of that content.