Boucher, 011921 MAWC, 018358-03

Case DateJanuary 19, 2021
CourtMassachusetts
Christopher Boucher Employee
Edward Buick, Inc. Employer
Associated Employers Insurance Company Insurer
No. 018358-03
Massachusetts Workers Compensation Decisions
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents
January 19, 2021
         This case was heard by Administrative Judge Benoit.           Paul L. Durkee, Esq., for the employee.           Peter P. Harney, Esq., for the insurer at hearing.           Dawn M. Colozzo, Esq., for the insurer on appeal.           Long, Fabricant and Koziol, Judges.          AMENDED REVIEWING BOARD DECISION           LONG, J.          The insurer appeals the hearing decision, which denied its discontinuance request and ordered §§ 13 and 30 benefits for psychiatric treatment. The insurer alleges the judge committed error when he declined to consider the § 11A impartial opinion and adopted opinions found in the additional medical evidence allowed by motion. Finding no error in the judge's reasoning or findings, we affirm the hearing decision.          This claim has a lengthy procedural history, and, for purposes of our review, we note there are two prior hearing decisions issued by different administrative judges.[1] Each decision established liability for a June 11, 2003, industrial injury involving, among other conditions, a spinal cord syrinx.2 The current litigation involves the insurer's latest discontinuance request and § 1(7A) defense relative to a claim for psychiatric treatment.3 The insurer appealed the conference denial of its discontinuance request, and a § 11A impartial examination was conducted by Dr. Stephen Saris on January 16, 2018. At the hearing on April 19, 2019, the judge allowed the employee's motion to allow additional medical testimony, and each party submitted additional medical exhibits. In his December 11, 2019, hearing decision, the current administrative judge denied the insurer's discontinuance request and ordered the payment of psychiatric medical treatment. In doing so, the judge adopted the medical opinions of the employee's physicians (Drs. Nairus, Izzo, Pease, Polizoti and Vinton) and specifically rejected Dr. Saris' opinion, which disagreed with the very existence of the heretofore mentioned thoracic syrinx. The judge found:
The § 11A examiner in the instant case is supportive of the insurer's positions but has stated conclusions that are contrary to the established law of the case. More particularly, Dr. Saris states that the Employee does not have "putative syringomyelia," but rather has "an enlarged central canal, which is a normal variant. It is a congenital condition that will not cause any clinical
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT