Lovasco's Case

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Lovasco's Case

357 N.E.2d 28, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 854, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 659

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedNovember 24, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 357 N.E.2d 28 (Lovasco's Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lovasco's Case, 357 N.E.2d 28, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 854, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 659 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

The single member’s

“finding” (affirmed and adopted by the reviewing board) that “the claimant has failed to prove by a fair preponderance of affirmative evi[855]*855dence that there was Serious and willful misconduct on the part of the employer which resulted in the injury” (see G. L. c. 152, § 28; O’Leary’s Case, 367 Mass. 108, 115-116 [1975]) was not contrary to law. See and compare Sciola’s Case, 236 Mass. 407, 413-414 (1920); Foster’s Case, 242 Mass. 386, 387-388 (1922); Durgin’s Case, 251 Mass. 427, 429-430 (1925); McCarthy’s Case, 314 Mass. 610, 611-612 (1943); Diaduk’s Case, 336 Mass. 5, 7 (1957). The employee’s arguments are largely predicated on the mistaken premise that this court can make its own independent findings of fact. See Hachadourian’s Case, 340 Mass. 81, 85 (1959).

Ronald B. Horvitz for the employee. John W. Finnigan for the employer (Robert J. Ladd, for the insurer, with him).

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The single member’s

“finding” (affirmed and adopted by the reviewing board) that “the claimant has failed to prove by a fair preponderance of affirmative evi[855]*855dence that there was Serious and willful misconduct on the part of the employer which resulted in the injury” (see G. L. c. 152, § 28; O’Leary’s Case, 367 Mass. 108, 115-116 [1975]) was not contrary to law. See and compare Sciola’s Case, 236 Mass. 407, 413-414 (1920); Foster’s Case, 242 Mass. 386, 387-388 (1922); Durgin’s Case, 251 Mass. 427, 429-430 (1925); McCarthy’s Case, 314 Mass. 610, 611-612 (1943); Diaduk’s Case, 336 Mass. 5, 7 (1957). The employee’s arguments are largely predicated on the mistaken premise that this court can make its own independent findings of fact. See Hachadourian’s Case, 340 Mass. 81, 85 (1959).

Ronald B. Horvitz for the employee. John W. Finnigan for the employer (Robert J. Ladd, for the insurer, with him).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 N.E.2d 28, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 854, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovascos-case-massappct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack