Content area
Full text
Editor's note: The full text of these decisions can be ordered at lwopinions.com.Workers' compensationLate notice - Spouse's failure to testifyWhere an employee was awarded SS13, 13A, 30 and 34 benefits after being injured while driving his employer's tractor-trailer, that decision must be affirmed despite the employee's late notice of the injury and the judge's decision not to draw an adverse inference from the failure of the employee's wife to testify."First, the employer argues the employee's claim should be barred by his failure to provide it with timely notice of his injury. ... We disagree. ... The plain and unambiguous language of (G.L.c. 152, S41) operates to deny uninsured employers the defense of late notice. ... We conclude the employee was under no obligation to provide timely notice of his October 26, 2010 injury to the employer because it was uninsured on that date. "The employer also argues the judge erred by declining to draw an adverse inference from the failure of the employee's wife to testify. ... At the commencement of the hearing, employee's counsel indicated the employee's wife would testify. ... Employee's counsel later changed his mind, and so informed the judge and the parties. ... Employer's counsel voiced no objection to her failure to testify, and made no attempt to call her to the stand. ... Instead, in his Memorandum of Law submitted after the hearing, employer's counsel requested the judge draw an adverse inference from her failure to testify. There was no error."When a party fails to call a witness who is available and who would be expected to give testimony favorable to that party, a fact-finder may draw an inference adverse to that party's interest. ... Thus, the judge did not err by choosing not to do so. In fact, (b)ecause the inference, when it is made, can have a seriously adverse effect on the noncalling party -- suggesting, as it does, that the party has wilfully attempted to withhold or conceal significant evidence -- it should be invited only in clear cases, and with caution."The decision is affirmed."In Re: Coogan, Robert (Lawyers Weekly No. 25-030-13) (4 pages) (Horan, A.L.J.) (DIA) Leonard Schneider for the employee; Thomas P. Gay, of Gay & Gay, for the employer; Mary C. Garippo for the Workers' Compensation Trust Fund (Board No. 035885-10) (Dec. 10, 2013).Workers' compensationIncapacity - Physician testimonyWhere an employee injured his back while working as a school custodian, he was properly awarded S35 partial incapacity benefits, rather than his claimed S34 temporary total incapacity benefits, in light of the reliable testimony of physicians."In his brief the employee restates, although in greater detail, the argument raised in his motion, that the judge made a 'flawed and erroneous analysis that misstates, misconstrues or failed (sic) to consider medical evidence submitted for review by the employee.' ... "The employee acknowledges ... that a judge is free to adopt all, part or none of an expert's medical opinion, as long as she makes sufficient findings to allow the Reviewing Board to determine on what medical evidence she relies, ... and does not mischaracterize that medical opinion. ... This is what occurred in this case. ..."In Re: Kent, Peter (Lawyers Weekly No. 25-031-13) (8 pages) (Harpin, A.L.J.) (DIA) Thomas C. McDonough for the employee at hearing and on appeal; Mark J. Kelly, of Tentindo, Kendall, Canniff & Keefe, for the self-Insurer at hearing; John J. Canniff, of Tentindo, Kendall, Canniff & Keefe, for the self-Insurer on appeal (Board No. 020474-08) (Dec. 10, 2013).