No. 00795192 (1999). EMPLOYEE: James Pittsley.

• Case Date: October 28, 1999
• Court: Massachusetts

Massachusetts Workers Compensation 1999. No. 00795192 (1999). EMPLOYEE: James Pittsley COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS EMPLOYEE: James Pittsley 3RD APPELLEE: Broadway Chiropractic GroupEMPLOYER: Brake and Truck Supply, Inc. INSURER: Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.BOARD NO. 00795192REVIEWING BOARD DECISION (Judges Wilson, McCarthy and Smith)APPEARANCES James F. Fitzgerald, Esq., for the employee Paul M. Moretti, Esq., for the third party/appellee Thomas G. Brophy, Esq., for the insurer WILSON, J. The insurer appeals from a decision in which an administrative judge denied and dismissed its claim for § 14(2) penalties for fraudulent alteration of treatment records by the third party medical provider, Broadway Chiropractic. In an earlier decision, the judge had awarded the insurer the claimed fraud penalties, but reversed himself when presented with new evidence. The first proceeding had been tried on the theory that payments had been made for the employee's foot treatment, but that a balance was due for additional treatments to the employee's back, which never were performed. (Dec. 5.) The parties stipulated in the present proceedings, however, that the insurer had paid nothing on the employee's claim for medical treatment. Moreover, it was not disputed that the bills for the services, with or without the questioned back treatments, were exactly the same. Id. We affirm the decision. We look first at the procedural history. The reviewing board affirmed the judge's first decision awarding the penalties sought by the insurer. We wrote, "The judge found the employee did not receive treatments for a work-related back injury and that the properly paid treatment records for the foot were falsely altered [to include back treatments] to induce the insurer to pay additional monies." Pittsley v. Brake and Truck Supply, 10 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 444, 446 (1996). After the Massachusetts Appeals Court granted a stay of the employee's appeal to the Appeals Court with leave to re-open the issue at the department, we recommitted the case to the administrative judge for further proceedings as he deemed appropriate. (Dec. 3.) In the hearing on recommittal, the parties stipulated to non-payment of the $540.85 bill in question. (Dec. 5.) Furthermore, additional evidence was presented that indicated the...