Ray's Case

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Ray's Case

403 N.E.2d 1199, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 913, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1148

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMay 6, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 403 N.E.2d 1199 (Ray'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

Ray's Case, 403 N.E.2d 1199, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 913, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1148 (Mass. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

The employee filed a claim for workmen’s compensation with the Industrial Accident Board because of injuries alleged to have arisen out of and in the course of her employment. A conference was held before a single member of the board, pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 152, § 7, as appearing in St. 1972, c. 742, § 1. A denial of payment order was filed by the single member on January 13, 1977. The employee did not request a hearing within the time limited by § 7. On July 21, 1978, the employee filed a petition for leave to file a claim late in the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 152, § 8A, as amended by St. 1976, c. 392. After a hearing the judge entered an order allowing the petition. The employer and the insurer have appealed. The effect of that order was to remove a procedural barrier to the employee’s continued litigation of her claim. It was thus interlocutory in [914]*914nature and is not properly before us. Compare Pereira’s Case, 313 Mass. 774, 775 (1943); Batchon’s Case, 333 Mass. 605, 606 (1956). Workmen’s compensation cases may not be appealed on a piecemeal basis. Appellate review of the correctness of the judge’s order must await a final judgment of the case on its merits. Assuncao’s Case, 372 Mass. 6, 8 (1977).

J. Norman O’Connor, Jr., for the insurer & another. Thomas A. Boyle, III, for the employee.

Appeal dismissed.

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

The employee filed a claim for workmen’s compensation with the Industrial Accident Board because of injuries alleged to have arisen out of and in the course of her employment. A conference was held before a single member of the board, pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 152, § 7, as appearing in St. 1972, c. 742, § 1. A denial of payment order was filed by the single member on January 13, 1977. The employee did not request a hearing within the time limited by § 7. On July 21, 1978, the employee filed a petition for leave to file a claim late in the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 152, § 8A, as amended by St. 1976, c. 392. After a hearing the judge entered an order allowing the petition. The employer and the insurer have appealed. The effect of that order was to remove a procedural barrier to the employee’s continued litigation of her claim. It was thus interlocutory in [914]*914nature and is not properly before us. Compare Pereira’s Case, 313 Mass. 774, 775 (1943); Batchon’s Case, 333 Mass. 605, 606 (1956). Workmen’s compensation cases may not be appealed on a piecemeal basis. Appellate review of the correctness of the judge’s order must await a final judgment of the case on its merits. Assuncao’s Case, 372 Mass. 6, 8 (1977).

J. Norman O’Connor, Jr., for the insurer & another. Thomas A. Boyle, III, for the employee.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

403 N.E.2d 1199, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 913, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rays-case-massappct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack