In re Di Leo
| Decision Date | 30 October 1936 |
| Parties | DI LEO'S CASE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Diego Di Leo, employee, opposed by Edward S. Moore & Son, employer, and the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, insurer, wherein the employee and employer entered into an agreement for payment of compensation for injuries sustained by employee, which was approved by the Industrial Accident Board, and thereafter proceedings were had on the question of discontinuance of payments. From an adverse decree of the superior court on proceedings to review the ruling of single member and reviewing board in favor of the employee, the insurer appeals.
Appeal dismissed.Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Sisk, Judge.
W. G. Reed and E. H. Potter, both of Boston, for appellant.
Nicholas Fusaro and Nunziato Fusaro, of Worcester, for claimant.
This is an appeal by the insurer from a decree entered on March 6, 1936, ordering it to pay compensation to the employee at a specified rate from June 19, 1933, to be continued in accordance with the provsions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (G.L.[Ter.Ed.] c. 152, as amended). The ground of objection is that the court was without jurisdiction because the contract of hiring between the employee and his insured employer, and the injury received in the course of and growing out of that employment, took place on land belonging to the United States of America located in the town of Rutland within the territorial limits of this Commonwealth.
The history of the case as disclosed by the record may be summarized briefly. The employee was injured on October 9, 1932. On October 23, 1932, the employee and the insurer entered into an agreement for payment of compensation for the injuries sustained by the employee in the course of his employment by the insured employer at the rate of $14.66 per week during his total disability. This agreement was approved by the Industrial Accident Board on January 12, 1933. Payments were made accordingly by the insurer for a time. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 152, § 6. A hearing was had on June 19, 1933, on the question of the discontinuance of the payments. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 152, § 7. In a decision filed August 9, 1933, the single member of the board found that the employee continued to be totally disabled and was entitled to continuance of compensation at the same rate. The insurer sought to raise the question of jurisdiction, but the single member ruled, subject to the exception of the insurer, that it had no right to raise that question at that time. The insurer claimed a review. The reviewing board, on November 10, 1933, affirmed the finding and ruling of the single member. The insurer presented certified copies of the decisions of the single member and the reviewing board to the Superior Court and asked that a ‘decree be entered on said findings and decision.’ G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 152, § 11. The insurer then filed a motion that the case be recommitted to the Industrial Accident Board for the purpose of taking evidence to determine whether ‘the Veterans Bureau Hospital in Rutland, where the work was performed and the contract of hire with the employee made, is the same property referred to in’ St.1922, c. 409. An order was entered granting that motion. In conformity to that order a final decision after hearing was rendered on February 1, 1936, to the effect that the work was performed and the contract of hire with the employee was made on the property referred to in St.1922, c. 409. On March 6, 1936, a decree was entered in approved form, Johnson's Case, 242 Mass. 489, 494, 495, 136 N.E. 563, in substantial conformity to the terms of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial