Schena's Case

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Schena's Case

108 N.E.2d 926, 329 Mass. 767, 1952 Mass. LEXIS 752

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 1, 1952

StatusPublished

This text of 108 N.E.2d 926 (Schena'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

Schena's Case, 108 N.E.2d 926, 329 Mass. 767, 1952 Mass. LEXIS 752 (Mass. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree affirmed. There was evidence that the employee, while working for his employer, contracted pneumonia and tuberculosis by inhaling dust which came from rags and paper that he handled. The single member and the reviewing board found and ruled that the employee had not sustained the burden of proving that the employee’s incapacity to work was causally related to an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Superior Court dismissed the claim for compensation. The statement of the single member, stated above, was a finding [768]*768of fact, and not a ruling that such a finding was compulsory. Roney’s Case, 316 Mass. 732, 734. Since the board could refuse to believe any of the evidence (Roney’s Case, supra), there was no error in that finding, and the decree dismissing the claim must be affirmed.

Vincent A. Canavan, for the claimant. Thomas A. L’Esperance, Jr., for the insurer.

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

Decree affirmed. There was evidence that the employee, while working for his employer, contracted pneumonia and tuberculosis by inhaling dust which came from rags and paper that he handled. The single member and the reviewing board found and ruled that the employee had not sustained the burden of proving that the employee’s incapacity to work was causally related to an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Superior Court dismissed the claim for compensation. The statement of the single member, stated above, was a finding [768]*768of fact, and not a ruling that such a finding was compulsory. Roney’s Case, 316 Mass. 732, 734. Since the board could refuse to believe any of the evidence (Roney’s Case, supra), there was no error in that finding, and the decree dismissing the claim must be affirmed.

Vincent A. Canavan, for the claimant. Thomas A. L’Esperance, Jr., for the insurer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.E.2d 926, 329 Mass. 767, 1952 Mass. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schenas-case-mass-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack