Workers Compensation Summary of Reviewing Board Cases, November 2016

Section 11A(2)

Satwant Saini v. Jeffco Fibers, Inc., ____ Mass. Workers Comp. Rep. ____ (Harpin, J. 11/14/16). The Employee appealed a decision dismissing his claims for medical benefits due to his failure to pay the appeal fee. In 2007, the employee appealed a conference order denying the claim, but did not submit payment pursuant to Section 11A(2). Lack of payment was brought to the Employees attention, through counsel, still without payment. The case was then administratively withdrawn. In 2008, the Employee complained about the withdrawal, and in 2009 the Administrative Judge explained that the parties did not jointly waive the Impartial Examination. The Employee then filed a second claim, which was withdrawn by a conciliator. In 2010, the Employee filed a third claim, which was withdrawn by a conciliator. The Senior Judge stated that the conciliator lacked that authority. The Administrative Judge denied the claim at conference, which the Employee appealed. At hearing, the claim was again denied, finding that the failure to perfect appeal by submitting the appeal fee resulted in an acceptance of the conference order in 2007. The Reviewing Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.


Section 13(A)(6)

Summary Disposition. Thomas J. McClure v. Greg Dolan, ____ Mass. Workers Comp. Rep. ____ (Harpin, J. 11/14/16). Affirmed the Administrative Judges decision of a $1,613.55 attorneys fee.

Successive Insurer Rule

In this successive insurer matter, Kenneth Linton v. G.P.C. International/Chartpak Inc., ____ Mass. Workers Comp. Rep. ____ (Koziol, J. 11/72016), the Second Insurer appealed a decision in which it was ordered to pay benefits. The Second Insurer argued that, without notice, the Administrative Judge transformed the employees claim alleging one injury in 2012 into a repetitive ongoing aggravation, and ultimately finding it liable under the successive insurer rule. The Reviewing Board upheld the Administrative Judges decision after review of the facts and legal analysis, finding that the issue of ongoing or continuous injury was tried by consent.