Moog v. Commonwealth
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
The Commonwealth urges on appeal that c. 30, § 58, authorizes assault *842pay to “an employee” who is injured while in the performance of his duty and that Moog became ineligible for such pay when he resigned from his job during the period of his injury-related workers’ compensation eligibility.2 The provision should be seen as analogous to G. L. c. 41, § 111F, the Commonwealth argues. That statute gives full pay to police and firefighters injured in the line of duty, but a resignation by the employee terminates all benefits under it. Moog argues, and the Superior Court judge agreed, that the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. Zotal, Ltd.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Seymour's CaseMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
- Paparo v. Town of ProvincetownMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1993
3Cited by5 opinions
- Tri-County Youth Programs, Inc. v. Acting Deputy Director of the Division of Employment & TrainingMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2002
- Benson v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2014
- Cadigan v. Chief Justice for Administration & ManagementMassachusetts Superior Court · 2001
- Flaherty v. Sheriff of Suffolk CountyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2015
- Marchand v. Department of CorrectionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016