Search for: "In re Appeal of G.L." Results 1 - 20 of 35
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jan 2016, 9:56 am by Pulgini & Norton, LLP
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts addressed the issue of partial incapacity benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 152 § 35 in a workers’ compensation claim, In re Barbosa’s Case, 10 N.E.3d 1144 (Mass. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 11:51 am by Pulgini & Norton, LLP
The Massachusetts Appeals Court released an opinion, In re Evans’ Case, reversing the decisions of the Department of Industrial Accidents and the administrative judge denying a worker’s claim for partial incapacity benefits under G.L. c. 152 § 35. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 8:13 am
In a case decided late last year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a Massachusetts company would be permitted to bring a second lawsuit against its insurance company seeking damages for unfair and deceptive practices, a violation of G.L. c. 93A, Sec. 11. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 12:27 pm by Pulgini & Norton, LLP
The current appeal was based on an application filed in 2013, in which the plaintiff requested a permit to allow for the reconstruction of a pre-existing, nonconforming single family dwelling pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 6. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 7:24 am by Heidi A. Nadel
The case addresses the application and interpretation of the property tax exemption applied to religious houses of worship in G.L. c. 59, §5, Clause Eleventh, and raises First Amendment freedom of religion issues and potentially sweeping consequences for churches and other faith-based organizations. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 7:24 am by Heidi A. Nadel
Yesterday afternoon, the Court issued a notice that the quorum of Justices that heard argument in the case did not reach a majority decision, and that the case will be re-argued before the Court as now composed.The composition of the Court has changed significantly since the April 5 argument. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 7:24 am by Heidi A. Nadel
Yesterday afternoon, the Court issued a notice that the quorum of Justices that heard argument in the case did not reach a majority decision, and that the case will be re-argued before the Court as now composed.The composition of the Court has changed significantly since the April 5 argument. [read post]
26 Aug 2015, 9:32 am by Pulgini & Norton, LLP
A recent opinion released by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, In re Driscoll’s Case, affirmed the decision of an administrative judge denying ongoing total incapacity benefits to an employee. [read post]
19 May 2016, 9:23 am by Pulgini & Norton, LLP
In a recent opinion, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts reviewed a workers’ compensation case in the matter of In re Murphy, 89 Mass. [read post]
27 Oct 2015, 11:47 am by Pulgini & Norton, LLP
The Massachusetts Court of Appeals recently reviewed a workers’ compensation appeal from a decision of the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents, In re Sosa’s Case. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 11:45 am by Pulgini & Norton, LLP
In an opinion from the Appeals Court of Massachusetts released earlier this year, In re Hollow’s Case, the Appeals Court discussed the seemingly inconsistent decision of an administrative judge in granting an employee’s medical services claim while discontinuing his workers’ compensation benefits under § 34. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 9:38 am by Pulgini & Norton, LLP
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts recently affirmed a decision of the Department of Industrial Accidents Reviewing Board, In re Wicklow’s Case, 32 N.E.3d 369 (2015), which found that an employer’s acts caused the exacerbation of an employee’s pre-existing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). [read post]
17 Nov 2016, 9:51 am by Pulgini & Norton, LLP
In an appeal involving a defunct workers’ compensation self-insurer, the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents Reviewing Board held that a settlement agreement reached between a re-insurer and a bond holder was contrary to statute and invalid. [read post]
13 Sep 2008, 11:21 am
He was sentenced to a year in jail.In Friday's decision, Appeals Court Judge Mark V. [read post]