Palomba's Case

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Palomba's Case

401 N.E.2d 899, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 881, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1082

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMarch 25, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 401 N.E.2d 899 (Palomba'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

Palomba's Case, 401 N.E.2d 899, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 881, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1082 (Mass. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

1. The single member of the board, whose decision and findings were affirmed and adopted by the reviewing board (G. L. c. 152, § 10), considered the employee’s salary, room, board, and tips in arriving at his finding as to the employee’s average weekly wage. G. L. c. 152, § 1(1). There was evidence to support those findings, which we cannot disturb “unless different findings are required as matter of law.” Bajdek’s Case, 321 Mass. 325, 326 (1947). 2. The short answer to the employee’s grievance that no finding was made as to partial incapacity compensation is that the single member and later the reviewing board found that the employee’s earning capacity exceeded his average weekly wage on July 9, 1973. 3. Palomba’s “terse and very sketchy reference” to the question of the prevailing party’s right to costs under G. L. c. 152, § 11, falls short of argument within the meaning of Mass.R.A.P. 16(a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10,14 (1958) . Accordingly, we do not address the question.

Judgment affirmed.

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

1. The single member of the board, whose decision and findings were affirmed and adopted by the reviewing board (G. L. c. 152, § 10), considered the employee’s salary, room, board, and tips in arriving at his finding as to the employee’s average weekly wage. G. L. c. 152, § 1(1). There was evidence to support those findings, which we cannot disturb “unless different findings are required as matter of law.” Bajdek’s Case, 321 Mass. 325, 326 (1947). 2. The short answer to the employee’s grievance that no finding was made as to partial incapacity compensation is that the single member and later the reviewing board found that the employee’s earning capacity exceeded his average weekly wage on July 9, 1973. 3. Palomba’s “terse and very sketchy reference” to the question of the prevailing party’s right to costs under G. L. c. 152, § 11, falls short of argument within the meaning of Mass.R.A.P. 16(a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10,14 (1958) . Accordingly, we do not address the question.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 N.E.2d 899, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 881, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palombas-case-massappct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack