Legal Opinion

Moog v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided March 28, 1997No. 94-P-1150PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. Zotal, Ltd.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  2. Seymour's CaseMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
  3. Paparo v. Town of ProvincetownMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1993

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Tri-County Youth Programs, Inc. v. Acting Deputy Director of the Division of Employment & TrainingMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2002
  2. Benson v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2014
  3. Cadigan v. Chief Justice for Administration & ManagementMassachusetts Superior Court · 2001
  4. Flaherty v. Sheriff of Suffolk CountyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2015
  5. Marchand v. Department of CorrectionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API