Nolan v. Commissioner of Department of Industrial Accidents

26 Mass. L. Rptr. 88 (2009)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Nolan v. Commissioner of Department of Industrial Accidents

Massachusetts Superior Court
26 Mass. L. Rptr. 88 (2009)

Facts

Paula Eastwood (plaintiff) filed a claim for workers’-compensation benefits for three separate injuries against three insurers. The conciliator requested that a fourth insurer to be added to the claim. Eastwood argued that it was not necessary, so the conciliator withdrew the claim. The senior judge of the Department of Industrial Accidents (the senior judge) (defendant) affirmed the withdrawal, finding Eastwood had failed to provide requested documents and had failed to add the fourth insurer to her claim. Valerie Sullivan (plaintiff) filed a claim for benefits against one insurer. The insurer made a payment to her after the statutory deadline, so Sullivan filed a claim for a late-payment penalty. The conciliator extended the conciliation period pursuant to statutory law. However, no consultation occurred, and there was no record put in the file. The conciliator withdrew the claim, and the senior judge affirmed. Emile Tabea (plaintiff) filed a claim for benefits after he suffered a back injury. Tabea missed work because of his injury. Tabea did not seek medical treatment for each day he missed work. The conciliator requested treatment records for each day Tabea was absent from work, but Tabea did not have documentation to provide. The conciliator withdrew the claim, and the senior judge affirmed. Alvarez Hinton (plaintiff) filed a claim for total-disability benefits. Hinton provided documents from his treating physician, but they did not state he was totally disabled. Due to a lack of sufficient documentation, the conciliator withdrew the claim. Hinton did not allege what decision the senior judge issued after Hinton appealed the withdrawal. Eastwood, Sullivan, Tabea, and Hinton (collectively, the claimants) sued the senior judge and the commissioner of the Department of Industrial Accidents for declaratory judgment, mandamus, and due-process-rights violations. The senior judge and the commissioner filed a motion to dismiss.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Agnes, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership