No. 06035392 (1999). EMPLOYEE: Carl Lozowski.

• Case Date: December 21, 1999
• Court: Massachusetts

Massachusetts Workers Compensation 1999. No. 06035392 (1999). EMPLOYEE: Carl Lozowski COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS EMPLOYEE: Carl Lozowski EMPLOYER: Sweeney and Sons, Inc. INSURER: Travelers Insurance Co.BOARD NO. 06035392REVIEWING BOARD DECISION (Judges Wilson, McCarthy and Smith)APPEARANCES Frank J. Ciano, Esq., for the employee Terence P. Reilly, Esq., for the insurer WILSON, J. The employee appeals from a decision in which the administrative judge denied his claim for permanent and total incapacity benefits, and awarded partial incapacity benefits based on an average weekly wage that the employee contends was miscalculated. We summarily affirm the decision as to the employee's appeal from the judge's conclusion that he was not entitled to § 34A permanent and total incapacity benefits. The employee contends that the judge erred by failing to assign his average weekly wage in accordance with the "prevailing wage" provisions of G.L. c. 149, § 26, governing "public works" construction projects. See McCarty v. Wilkinson and Co., 11 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 285, 288-289 (1997). However, because we cannot tell from the decision what documents the judge considered in reaching his decision to deny the employee's claim for a higher average weekly wage, we must recommit the case for clarification of the record. Only after all of the documents considered by the judge have been marked and identified on the record will the prevailing wage issue be ready for appellate review. The employee was injured on November 2, 1992, while working on the construction of the Hyatt Hotel at Logan Airport in Boston. (Dec. 4.) The parties submitted writings relevant to the prevailing wage issue following the close of testimony on the employee's § 34A claim, which hearing took place on October 29, 1996. (Dec. 2, 17.) The judge reported in his decision that "[t]hose writings along with the parties' closing arguments are incorporated in the record of these proceedings by reference." (Dec. 17.) The only exhibits relevant to the issue that are identified in the decision are the Mass Port Authority Enabling Act (Employee Ex. A for Identification) and a document entitled Mass Port Authority Special Project Revenue Bonds (Employee Ex. B for Identification). (Dec. 1-2.) The judge concluded that "there is insufficient evidence...