Legal Opinion

Mueller's Case

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided November 17, 1999No. 98-P-1568PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

As to the permanent loss of function claim under G. L. c. 152, § 36, the single justice correctly decided that it was barred under principles of claim preclusion because the claimed loss of function was known at the time the employee entered into a lump sum settlement (G. L. c. 152, § 48) with the insurer. See Saint Louis v. Baystate Med. Center, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 393, 399 (1991). For the application of such principles in workers’ compensation cases, see Martin v. Ring, 401 Mass. 59, 63 (1987). As to the question of legal fees, the employee had accepted disability payments after he had…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Martin v. RingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
  2. Saint Louis v. Baystate Medical Center, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1991
  3. Connolly's CaseMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1996
  4. Gonzalez's CaseMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1996

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. MARY M. LAMPORT'S CASE.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API