From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Simari's Case

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jan 14, 1981
414 N.E.2d 629 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981)

Summary

noting that one who was capable of "light part-time sedentary work" and who could, with treatment, resume full-time work was not permanently and totally disabled

Summary of this case from Doyle v. the Paul Revere Life Insurance Co.

Opinion

January 14, 1981.

Carolynn N. Fischel for the employee.

Edwin F. Hannon, Jr., for the insurer.


There was evidence in the several medical opinions received by the reviewing board which warranted its finding that the employee was "capable of light part-time sedentary work" and could, with treatment, resume full-time work. The decision of the board is to stand unless it is unsupported by evidence, including all rational inferences which may be drawn from it. Chapman's Case, 321 Mass. 705, 707 (1947). Vouniseas's Case, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 133, 134 (1975). Carnute's Case, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 814, 815 (1980). It follows that the board was justified in concluding that the employee was not totally and permanently incapacitated and, therefore, not entitled to the compensation provided for in G.L.c. 152, § 34A. Amello's Case, 320 Mass. 347, 348 (1946). Weaver's Case, 351 Mass. 709, 709 (1967): Certainly the evidence did not require a finding in the employee's favor. DeSa's Case, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 711, 711 (1975). Contrast Boss v. Travelers Ins. Co., 296 Mass. 18, 22-23 (1936) (complete physical or mental incapacity of the insured not essential to total disability within meaning of insurance contract); Khachadoorian's Case, 329 Mass. 625, 630 (1953) (blindness prevented claimant from doing work of "a substantial and not merely trifling character").

The employee claims the board erred in denying his request to rebut the reports of the impartial physicians. On the record before us we cannot establish the date when the impartial physicians' reports were furnished. Nor does a request to rebut those reports appear in the record. We are, thus, without a factual basis for deciding the question. Contrast Benham's Case, 356 Mass. 196, 199-200 (1969). Compare Phillips's Case, 278 Mass. 194, 196 (1932); Locke, Workmen's Compensation § 493 n. 71 (1968). We are not bound to inquire outside the record furnished to us by the parties. Kunen v. First Agricultural Natl. Bank, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 684, 689-690 (1978).

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

In re Simari's Case

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jan 14, 1981
414 N.E.2d 629 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981)

noting that one who was capable of "light part-time sedentary work" and who could, with treatment, resume full-time work was not permanently and totally disabled

Summary of this case from Doyle v. the Paul Revere Life Insurance Co.
Case details for

In re Simari's Case

Case Details

Full title:IN RE SILVIO SIMARI'S CASE

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Jan 14, 1981

Citations

414 N.E.2d 629 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981)
414 N.E.2d 629

Citing Cases

Doyle v. the Paul Revere Life Insurance Co.

That his capacity, initially at least, may have been limited to part-time work does not require concluding…

Avery's Case

Sweeney's Case, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 284, 286-287 (1975). Simari's Case, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 904 (1981). Sousla's…