Mouradian's Case

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mouradian's Case

182 N.E.2d 492, 344 Mass. 753, 1962 Mass. LEXIS 903

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 3, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 N.E.2d 492 (Mouradian's Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mouradian's Case, 182 N.E.2d 492, 344 Mass. 753, 1962 Mass. LEXIS 903 (Mass. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Final decree affirmed subject to amendment in respect of interest. The findings of the single member on adequate evidence, adopted by the reviewing board, established that the employee after his injury was incapable of doing his former heavy work and did do lighter work as a route salesman; also that in connection with his new job he had to pay $30 a week out of his own pocket to operate his automobile. The decision deducted this sum from gross weekly earnings in determining the post-injury net earnings in the computation of partial disability compensation. This was right. New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Stens, 288 Mass. 302, 303. Powers’s Case, 275 Mass. 515. That the employee answered affirmatively the question, “Would this be in the nature of a promotion for you?” did not require the finding that the new work and lesser pay were not caused by the injury. We have cheeked the computations of the decision and do not find error or material confusion therein as claimed by the insurer. The employee may have leave (as he has requested) to move in the Superior Court to amend the decree to include interest under G. L. c. 152, § 50. Costs and reasonable expenses under G. L. c. 152, § 11A, shall be allowed by the single justice.

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

Final decree affirmed subject to amendment in respect of interest. The findings of the single member on adequate evidence, adopted by the reviewing board, established that the employee after his injury was incapable of doing his former heavy work and did do lighter work as a route salesman; also that in connection with his new job he had to pay $30 a week out of his own pocket to operate his automobile. The decision deducted this sum from gross weekly earnings in determining the post-injury net earnings in the computation of partial disability compensation. This was right. New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Stens, 288 Mass. 302, 303. Powers’s Case, 275 Mass. 515. That the employee answered affirmatively the question, “Would this be in the nature of a promotion for you?” did not require the finding that the new work and lesser pay were not caused by the injury. We have cheeked the computations of the decision and do not find error or material confusion therein as claimed by the insurer. The employee may have leave (as he has requested) to move in the Superior Court to amend the decree to include interest under G. L. c. 152, § 50. Costs and reasonable expenses under G. L. c. 152, § 11A, shall be allowed by the single justice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 N.E.2d 492, 344 Mass. 753, 1962 Mass. LEXIS 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mouradians-case-mass-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack