• This page, Gardy Gelin v. Vinny Testa's, Finbar's Pub, Personnel People, Ocean State Job Lot of Norwood, LLC, Reebok International, Ltd, Panera Bread, Lambert Brothers, is   offered by
  • Department of Industrial Accidents
Decision

Decision  Gardy Gelin v. Vinny Testa's, Finbar's Pub, Personnel People, Ocean State Job Lot of Norwood, LLC, Reebok International, Ltd, Panera Bread, Lambert Brothers

Date: 09/17/2008
Organization: Department of Industrial Accidents
Docket Number: DIA Board Nos. 041268-03, 049498-03,046329-04, 035068-05, 000003-06, 000004-06, 000068-06, 015947-06
Location: Boston
  • Employee: Gardy Gelin
  • Employer: Vinny Testa's, Finbar's Pub, Personnel People, Ocean State Job Lot of Norwood, LLC, Reebok International, Ltd, Panera Bread, Lambert Brothers
  • Insurer: Royal Insurance Co., Professional Liability Insurance, American Zurich Insurance Co., Federal Insurance Co., Reebok International, Ltd, Commerce and Industry Insurance, Mass Retail Merchants SIG

FABRICANT, J. The employee appeals from a decision in which the administrative judge concluded that no workplace injury had occurred, and denied and dismissed his claim for weekly workers' compensation benefits.1 The employee correctly argues that Royal Insurance Company (Royal) accepted liability for his February 2003 work injury when it failed to appeal a different administrative judge's § 10A conference order for medical benefits. We therefore vacate the decision, and recommit the case for a new hearing.2

Table of Contents

Downloads   for Gardy Gelin v. Vinny Testa's, Finbar's Pub, Personnel People, Ocean State Job Lot of Norwood, LLC, Reebok International, Ltd, Panera Bread, Lambert Brothers

1 We note that the case was tried against multiple successive insurers joined as a result of the employee's motion filed subsequent to the parties' appeal of the October 22, 2004 conference order granting medical benefits to the employee pursuant to §§13 and 30. Only one successive insurer filed a brief responding to the employee's appeal. Given our disposition of the employee's appeal, infra, the successive insurers will again be parties to the proceedings. See Borstel's Case, 307 Mass. 24, 26-27 (1940).

2 As the administrative judge who wrote the decision no longer serves on the industrial accident board, the proceedings on recommittal must be de novo.

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback