No. 01034891 (2000). EMPLOYEE: John M. Joyce.

• Case Date: February 10, 2000
• Court: Massachusetts

Massachusetts Workers Compensation 2000. No. 01034891 (2000). EMPLOYEE: John M. Joyce COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS EMPLOYEE: John M. Joyce EMPLOYER: New England Tractor Trailer School INSURER: Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.BOARD NO. 01034891REVIEWING BOARD DECISION (Judges Levine, Carroll and Maze-Rothstein)APPEARANCES Joseph P. McKenna, Jr., Esq., for the employee Thomas G. Brophy, Esq., for the insurer at hearing Ralph J. Cafarelli, Esq., for the insurer on appeal LEVINE, J. The employee appeals the decision of an administrative judge discontinuing his weekly benefits and denying his claim for additional benefits. After review and in accordance with the parties' stipulation, we recommit the decision for a hearing de novo. This matter has been before the reviewing board prior to the pending appeal. The administrative judge filed her original decision in October 1994. That decision, discontinuing the employee's weekly benefits, was appealed by the employee. In October 1997, we issued a Memorandum of Disposition dismissing the employee's appeal, without prejudice, and recommitting the case pursuant to a stipulation of remand executed by the parties; the judge was also given discretion to conduct such further proceedings as she deemed appropriate. On January 29, 1999, in apparent response, the administrative judge filed a second decision. 1 However, it appears that the January 1999 decision may not have been the final decision because the administrative judge rendered a third decision on February 25, 1999, which resolved the same issues presented in the January 1999 decision. 2 The employee has appealed both decisions, and the parties stipulate, once again, that the administrative judge's decision should be reversed and the case recommitted. Specifically, the parties stipulate to reversal of the February 25, 1999 decision and to recommittal for a de novo hearing. The parties further stipulate that the medical evidence from the prior hearings, with the exception of the [1992] impartial examination of Dr. Gibbons, [3] will formulate the medical basis for the new hearing. In...