Source: https://masslawyersweekly.com/category/department-of-industrial-accidents/page/30/
Timestamp: 2020-01-26 11:09:37
Document Index: 272849857

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§1', '§1', '§13', '§1', '§34', '§34']

Department of Industrial Accidents – Page 30 – Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
Home / Department of Industrial Accidents (page 30) /
Where an administrative judge denied a claim for benefits stemming from an emotional injury that resulted from a meeting that was conducted on work premises with representatives of the employer, the judge erred in finding the meeting was a bona fide “personnel action” within the meaning of §1(7A), and therefore the decision must be reversed.
Tagged with: Emotional injury
Workers’ compensation – Preexisting condition
Where (1) a worker was awarded ongoing total incapacity benefits and medical treatment pursuant and (2) the self-insurer argues that the administrative judge erred by failing to address its §1(7A) defense with respect to the employee’s cervical spine injury, any error in failing to specifically address §1(7A) was harmless due to the absence of persuasive evidence of a preexisting condition.
Workers’ compensation – Waiver – Affirmative defense
Where an insurer appeals from a decision ordering the payment of benefits pursuant to §§13 and 30, the judge erred in finding that the insurer waived its §1(7A) affirmative defense, and therefore the award of medical benefits must vacated and the case recommitted for further findings.
Workers’ compensation – Expert medical opinion
Where a self-insurer appeals from an administrative judge’s decision denying its complaint for discontinuance of benefits and awarding the employee ongoing total incapacity benefits based on multiple physical and mental diagnoses, the decision and award must be vacated because the judge relied on an expert medical opinion which combined work-related and non-work-related diagnoses to conclude that the employee was totally disabled.
Workers’ compensation – Due process – Scope of recommittal
Where the reviewing board recommitted a case for further findings of fact concerning the nature of a 1998 work injury, another remand must be ordered because the administrative judge exceeded his authority.
Where the self-insurer appeals from a decision awarding the employee §34A permanent and total incapacity benefits after an injury at work, arguing (1) that the administrative judge erred by failing to address whether the employee’s condition had worsened after a prior hearing decision found him to be only partially incapacitated, (2) that there is no evidentiary basis for the date chosen to commence the employee’s entitlement to §34A benefits and (3) that the judge misconstrued the medical evidence, there were no errors made by the judge and the court affirms the decision.
Tagged with: Permanent and total incapacity