No. 07594789 (1999). EMPLOYEE: Donna Thompson.

Case DateDecember 14, 1999
CourtMassachusetts
Massachusetts Workers Compensation 1999. No. 07594789 (1999). EMPLOYEE: Donna Thompson COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS EMPLOYEE: Donna Thompson EMPLOYER: Sturdy Memorial Hospital INSURER: Sturdy Memorial HospitalBOARD NO. 07594789REVIEWING BOARD DECISION (Judges Maze-Rothstein, Levine and Carroll)APPEARANCES James S. Aven, Esq., for the employee Linda C. Scarano, Esq., for the self-insurer at hearing Paul M. Moretti, Esq., for the self-insurer on appeal MAZE-ROTHSTEIN, J. The self-insurer appeals from a third decision following a second recommittal by the reviewing board. Because this decision is likewise flawed, we recommit the case once again. The facts of this accepted October 27, 1989 industrial injury are set out in Thompson v. Sturdy Memorial Hosp., 10 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 133 (1996), and need not be repeated here. Further, when the self-insurer appealed the second decision on its 1993 complaint to discontinue, the reviewing board again recommitted the case. That second recommittal directed the judge to make further findings on certain specifics, particularly a job offer as an admissions registrar that the self-insurer claimed to be dispositive of the employee's earning capacity: We therefore reverse the finding that the job offer did not meet the requirements of c. 152, § 35D(3). We affirm the finding that the night shift is unsuitable and not within the employee's ability to perform and recommit the case for further findings on the other shifts offered with the appropriate analysis under Scheffler [419 Mass. 251, 256 (1994)], and § 35D and on the issue of continuing medical disability and causal relationship. Since even more time has passed since the 1993 formulation of the record relied on for Decision II, in the interest of justice, the parties should be permitted to present evidence updating the employee's medical and vocational condition, if it has changed. Thompson v. Sturdy Memorial Hosp., 11 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 663, 668 (1997)["Thompson II"]. On the second recommittal, the judge took further testimony from the employee, and from an employer witness relative to the facts surrounding the job offer. He recited testimony of the employer witness. That witness stated that if the employee would attempt to return to work, all accommodations necessary would be made to...

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