• Murphy v. Team Star Contractors, Inc.

    December 31, 2003
    Having introduced no evidence at a hearing in which the employee alleged that he suffered an industrial injury as a result of an assault and battery at the hands of "Teddy," the president of the employer - which evidence the AJ credited, and upon which he based the doubling of compensation under G. L. c. 152, ¿ 28 [1] - the insurer argues on appeal that the employee started the fight and that Teddy's actions were "not of a quasi-criminal nature." (Insurer's Brief, 6,) We affirm the decision, and order that the insurer be sanctioned under ¿ 14(1)(a) [2] for having brought this appeal without reasonable grounds.
  • Miranda v. Chadwick's of Boston

    December 31, 2003
    Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty), appeals from an AJ's decision ordering that it pay reasonable and necessary medical expenses, including recommended shoulder surgery, as well as an unspecified period of ¿ 34 weekly incapacity benefits following the surgery. It argues that the AJ erred by denying its motion to join a concurrent employer and then by not finding that employer liable for the employee's incapacity. The insurer contends that neither the judge's subsidiary findings nor the impartial physicians' prima facie opinion supports the judge's assessment of liability against it. We disagree and affirm the judge's decision for the following reasons.
  • Pezzulo v. City of Salem

    December 30, 2003
    The self-insurer accepted liability for the employee's 1986 industrial injury [1] and paid him weekly incapacity benefits, without interruption, for almost fourteen years, always at the rate to which he was entitled for temporary, total incapacity under G. L. c. 152, ¿ 34.[2]
  • Beverly v. MBTA

    December 24, 2003
    An unusual twist in the self-insurer's appeal of decision awarding the employee ¿ 35 benefits is the employee's agreement that the case needs to be recommitted to the AJ for further findings on how it was that he concluded the employee could earn $ 227.98 per week. Not wanting to stand in the way of such a meeting of the minds, we add our voice to the consensus for recommittal. However, we also agree with the self-insurer that the decision has other problems that the judge must tackle on recommittal.
  • Labadie v. Raytheon Co.

    December 24, 2003
    The decision now on appeal denied the claimant G. L. c. 152, ¿¿ 31 and 33 [1] benefits because his deceased spouse had not sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of her employment with Raytheon. We affirm that decision. See G. L. c. 152, ¿ 11A.
  • Yackolow v. City of Lynn School Dept.

    December 23, 2003
    The employee appeals from an AJ's denial of her claim for workers' compensation benefits for an alleged repetitive stress injury of costochrondritis of the anterior chest. Because the judge's decision is based on credibility findings that are supported by record evidence, and we do not perceive any errors of law, we affirm the decision. See G. L. c. ¿ 11C.
  • Medellin v. Cashman KPA

    December 23, 2003
    After recent United States Supreme Court pronouncements, can undocumented immigrant workers [1] receive Massachusetts workers' compensation benefits? The insurer argues they cannot. It appeals from a decision awarding Guillermo Medellin such benefits. We therefore affirm the decision.
  • Rodrigues v. AM-PM Cleaning Corp.

    December 19, 2003
    The employee appeals from a decision denying his claim for G.L. c. 152, ¿ 34, temporary total incapacity benefits, and awarding ¿ 35 partial incapacity benefits of $340.77. (Dec. 4.) Because the decision lacks adequate vocational analysis, we recommit the case for further findings of fact. See G. L. c. 152, ¿ 11C.
  • Houghton v. Maaco Auto Paint, Inc.

    December 19, 2003
    The employee appeals from a decision in which an AJ denied and dismissed his claim for workers' compensation benefits, based on the judge's conclusion that the employee had not suffered the cumulative industrial back injury as claimed. The employee was not incapacitated by his back injury until his condition worsened by a non-work-related lifting incident at home. Because the decision is contrary to law, we reverse. See G. L. c. 152 ¿ 11C.
  • Corbett, Jr. v. Modern Continental Construction

    December 9, 2003
  • McKenna, Jr. v. Pool & Spa Center

    December 9, 2003
  • Lamonica v. Boston Water & Sewer Comm.

    December 5, 2003
  • Desrosiers v. Lakeville Hospital

    December 1, 2003
  • Borawski v. Gencor Industries, Inc.

    December 1, 2003

Recommended Content

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.