Decision

Decision  Adam P. Carey (deceased) v. Kernwood Country Club

Date: 05/25/2004
Organization: Department of Industrial Accidents
Docket Number: DIA Board No. 063616-00
Location: Boston
  • Employee: Adam P. Carey
  • Claimant: Richard A. Carey and Margaret L. Carey
  • Insurer: Eastern Casualty Insurance Company

COSTIGAN, J. The employee, Adam Carey, was sixteen years old, unmarried, and living with his parents at the time of his death from injuries sustained while working at the Kernwood Country Club. (Dec. 3.) His parents claimed G. L. c. 152, § 31, death benefits as dependents of their son. (Dec. 2.) The administrative judge found that the parents were conclusively presumed dependents of the employee under § 32(e), (Dec. 5), and awarded them § 31 benefits, but only from the employee's death on September 16, 2000 until March 2, 2002, which would have been his eighteenth birthday. (Dec. 10.) The decision is before us on the claimants' appeal. Because we conclude that the termination of § 31 benefits was contrary to law, we reverse that part of the decision, and order that payment of such benefits be made until the maximum statutory entitlement under § 311 is reached. We summarily affirm the decision as to all other issues argued on appeal.2

 

 

 

Table of Contents

Downloads   for Adam P. Carey (deceased) v. Kernwood Country Club

1 General Laws c. 152, § 31, provides in pertinent part:

The total payments due under this section shall not be more than the average weekly wage in effect in the commonwealth at the time of the injury . . . multiplied by two hundred and fifty plus any costs of living increases provided by this section. . . .

 

2 The claimants also appeal the judge's denial of their § 28 claim, seeking a doubling of benefits, based on the alleged serious and willful misconduct of the employer. They contend that the golf cart their son was operating at the time of his injury was "a motor vehicle of any description," and that the employer violated G. L. c. 149, § 62, by permitting their minor son to operate it. The claimants further appeal the judge's finding as to the employee's pre-injury average weekly wage, and also urge that the case be recommitted to the administrative judge to on their attorney's motion for an enhanced legal fee. Seeing no merit in any of these contentions, we summarily affirm the judge's decision on these points.

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback