| Date: | 02/21/2001 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Department of Industrial Accidents |
| Docket Number: | DIA Board No. 058795-94 |
| Location: | Boston |
| Referenced Sources: | William McCarty v. Wilkinson & Co. |
- Employee: William McCarty
- Employer: Wilkinson & Co.
- Insurer: National Union Fire Insurance
CARROLL, J. The employee appeals a second time, and the insurer cross- appeals, from a decision in which an administrative judge awarded closed periods of incapacity benefits under §§34 and 35, for a work related contact dermatitis. As to the insurer’s appeal on the issue of average weekly wage, we summarily affirm the decision. Among the many issues argued by the employee, one has merit. The employee contends that the judge mischaracterized the present disability opinion of the §11A dermatologist, and rejected it for arbitrary reasons stemming from that mischaracterization. We agree that the decision is fatally flawed due to the judge's unsupported findings concerning both the medical and lay evidence, which resulted in the judge's conclusion that the employee could return to his job of tile mechanic. We conclude from the undisputed evidence in both the original and recommital hearings, as a matter of law, that the employee cannot return to full duty tile work. Therefore, we reverse the decision. See Yates v. ASCAP, 11 Mass. Workers’ Comp. Rep. 447, 451 (1997). We recommit the case for further findings on the extent of incapacity.