WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TO THE REVIEWING BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS. 

Workers' Compensation is a "no-fault" system. If a worker is injured "in the course of employment" and the injury "arises out of employment," "benefits" should be paid by the insurance company. Unless there is a "negligent cause" other than the employer or a co-employee, there is no compensation for "pain and suffering" "loss of consortium" future loss of opportunity, disfigurements and other "damages" that can be recovered in negligence "claims" and so-called "third-party claims". Employers have "immunity" from lawsuits for personal injury sustained by their employees in the course of employment.

Terry has represented hundreds of injured workers and their families in major and minor cases involving injuries resulting in lost time from work; death by heart attack, falls, defective products and machinery; injuries to the back, head injuries; psychiatric illnesses; injury caused by noise, toxic chemicals and defective drugs, premises and machinery.

Most cases are resolved by agreements and settlements. Some require "hearings" at an "administrative court," called the Department of Industrial Accidents, where "Administrative Judges" conduct informal trials and make "decisions." When decisions are appealed, they are "heard" by "Administrative Law Judges" at a "Reviewing Board." Some of these cases result in published decisions.

Because of the limitations inherent in the workers' compensation system of "benefits," Attorney Low has appealed many decisions in order to have the laws interpreted liberally and broadly. Most of the appeals, however, were made by insurers who have lost at the trial level.

The "citations" following the names of the reported cases refer to the book and page numbers of the volume in which the decision can be found.

SLISKI V. DOANE & WILLIAMS, 7 Mass.WorkersComp.Rep. 249 (1993)

This important case involving a devastating and permanent injury to a young worker eventually was heard by the Supreme Judicial Court and reported at 224 Mass. 126 (1997). The employee prevailed in a wage adjustment pursuant to §51 of Chapter 152 and Mr. Low wrote the brief in the case in collaboration with Earlon L. Seeley, Jr. who is a champion at this obscure and seldom used provision of the law.

EDWARD KLIMEK V. WILBRAHAM TOYOTA AND HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, 17 Mass.WorkersComp.Rep. 527 (2003)

Over ten years after the precedent setting case of SLISKI V. DOANE & WILLIAMS, Attorney Low has appealed another case involving §51 of the Workers' Compensation Laws. This young mechanic lost his livelihood due to a crush injury to his dominate hand. For most injuries the law will freeze a worker's benefits to a rate based on wages at the time of the injury. This important section of the law allows an increased average wage for young workers injured, but who had expectations of wage increase through skill enhancement.

BARBARA PINKHAM V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 4 Mass.WorkersComp.Rep. 394 (1990)

Weekly benefits received by injured workers are based on an average wage that does not include payments made by employers for private health insurance. When the employer stops paying the premiums for health insurance, the family often cannot afford the premiums. In this case Attorney Low argued that payments for health insurance should be included in a workers' average weekly wages for purposes of determining the weekly comp. rate. In testing this principal, Attorney Low appealed a Decision denying an increase in the Workers' Compensation rates to reflect such costs. The Reviewing Board and ultimately the Appeals Court of the Commonwealth disagreed and refused to allow such an increase. An increase in weekly benefits should be addressed by the legislature.

FRANCIS QUINLAN V. NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY AND MAROIS CONSTRUCTION, 10 Mass.WorkersComp.Rep. 51 (1996).

This was a successful appeal by Attorney Low who represented a master carpenter, severely injured, whose benefits were terminated by the court because of the so-called "statutory presumption" that he would not have worked past the age of 65. Another law passed in 1991, it allows an insurer to discontinue temporary total benefits on a worker's 65th birthday. The Reviewing Board overturned the judge's decision stating that, "on the record" the employee presented sufficient evidence to overcome the statutory presumption. The employee's benefits were fully reinstated and ultimately a favorable settlement was reached.

THADDEUS KSZEPKA V. PIERSON INDUSTRIES AND AETNA CASUALTY SURETY COMPANY, 3 Mass.WorkersComp.Rep. 148, (1989.)

Brief for injured worker on appeal to the Reviewing Board of the Department of Industrial Accidents.

CHARLES RICCHARDSON V. THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, 6 Mass.W.C.Rep. 115 (1992)

In this case on appeal, Attorney Low briefly stepped into the shoes of an insurer and represented the Hartford in a serious heart attack case. The case was successfully defended and Attorney Low won the case on appeal.

WILLIAM J. RADGERS V. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 9 Mass.WorkersComp.Rep. 539 (1995)

This was a successful appeal on behalf of an injured public employee who ran a concurrent private trash removal business while working for the state.

ROBERT PALARDY V. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DPN, 6 Mass.WorkersComp.Rep. 165 (1992)

This was a successful appeal by the employee to the Reviewing Board which established that an administrative judge may not use dates such as the filing date of a decision as a date at which benefits are to commence.

WOODROW DUNHAM V. WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS HOSPITAL, 10 Mass.WorkersComp.Rep. 825 (1996)

This was a long battle for a public employee whose benefits were terminated by a Reviewing Board Decision and lost on appeal to the Appeals Court. Ultimately the employee prevailed in his case for age discrimination and his ADR retirement benefits were restored.

LARRY COUCH V. TOWN OF MONTAGUE AND COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, No. 040365 (June 27, 2006)

Often in cases involving on-the job injuries, an employer has changed insurance companies or an aggravation of a previous work related injury occurs with another employer. These cases become disputes between insurers and when insurers fight each other, the battle can take years to resolve. In this case, the employee, represented by Attorney Low, won the case at the hearing stage and the insurers continue to fight on appeal.