Cassier v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd.
| Citation | 124 N.E.2d 516,332 Mass. 237 |
| Parties | George T. CASSIER v. CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT APPEAL BOARD. |
| Decision Date | 09 February 1955 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John B. O'Hare, Boston, for petitioner.
Fred W. Fisher, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, WILKINS, SPALDING and COUNIHAN, JJ.
The petitioner applied to the Chelsea retirement board, hereinafter called the local board, for an accidental disability retirement allowance under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 32, § 7, as appearing in St.1945, c. 658, § 1. The local board denied his application and he appealed to the contributory retirement appeal board under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 32, § 16(4), as appearing in St.1945, c. 658, § 1. This board, which will hereinafter be called the appeal board, affirmed the decision of the local board. By this petition for certiorari the petitioner seeks to quash the decision of the appeal board. The case was heard on the petition and the return. The return included all of the evidence heard by the appeal board. The judge made findings of material facts and rulings of law and entered a judgment quashing the decision of the appeal board. From this judgment the board appealed. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 213, § 1D, inserted by St.1943, c. 374, § 4.
The return reveals the following: The petitioner was employed as a carpenter in the building department of the city of Chelsea, and is a member of the contributory retirement system of that city. On November 6, 1946, he sustained an injury to his back while setting up voting booths, and was incapacitated for a period of seven weeks. He sustained another back injury on April 11, 1950, while working and was away from work for four days. There was a recurrence of his back injury in June, 1952, for which he received medical treatment. His physician at that time diagnosed his ailment as 'a chronic low back strain * * * subject to recurrent attacks.'
On or about August 5, 1953, the petitioner applied for an accidental disability retirement allowance under the provisions of G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 32, § 7, as appearing in St.1945, c. 658, § 1. The petitioner was examined by a medical panel pursuant to section 6, of c. 32 as amended and the panel made a report of their findings and recommendations in which they stated that the petitioner was suffering from 'chronic lumbosacral back strain [and] associated hypertrophic arthritis'; that he was incapacitated from further duty in his present position; and that such disability was likely to be permanent. They gave as their opinion 'that the disability noted above is * * * the natural and proximate result of the accident or hazard undergone on account of which the retirement is claimed.' The report of the panel was before the local board as evidence and was later considered by the appeal board. The local board rendered a decision adverse to the petitioner in which it was stated that 'you have failed to substantiate your claim that your present physical condition is a direct result of the specific accident (November 6, 1946) for which you claim an accidental disability retirement.' From this decision the petitioner appealed to the appeal board, G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 32, § 16(4), as appearing in St.1945, c. 658, § 1. Down to and including the hearings before both boards the petitioner was still working as a carpenter in the building department of the city of Chelsea.
Under section 7 of c. 32 'Any member * * * [in certain designated groups] who becomes totally and permanently incapacitated for further duty before attaining the maximum age for his group by reason of a personal injury sustained or a hazard undergone as a result of, and while in the performance of, his duties at some definite place and at some definite time on or after the date of his becoming a member * * * without serious and wilful misconduct on his part,' is entitled to retirement under certain conditions which need not concern us.
The judge found that both boards gave the petitioner's case careful consideration and their decisions were not whimsical, capricious...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Narducci v. Contributory Retirement Bd.
...of evidence." Kelley v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 341 Mass. at 616, 171 N.E.2d 277. See Cassier v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 332 Mass. 237, 239, 124 N.E.2d 516 (1955); Shrewsbury Retirement Bd. v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 5 Mass.App.Ct. 379, 381, 363 N.E.2d 29......
-
Kelley v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd.
...that the 'disability is * * * the natural and proximate result,' a certificate to this effect, as in Cassier v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 332 Mass. 237, 239, 124 N.E.2d 516, and Hunt v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 332 Mass. 625, 626, 127 N.E.2d 171, although it is beyond t......
-
Campbell v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd.
...the use of the quoted standard by both the local retirement boards and CRAB. See, e.g., Cassier v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 332 Mass. 237, 238, 239, 124 N.E.2d 516 (1955); Wakefield Contributory Retirement Bd. v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 352 Mass. at 501, 226 N.E.2d 24......
-
Quincy Retirement Bd. v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd.
...of incapacity is a condition precedent to accidental disability retirement by the local board. Cassier v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 332 Mass. 237, 240, 124 N.E.2d 516; Hunt v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 332 Mass. 625, 627, 127 N.E.2d 171; Mathewson v. Contributory Retirem......