Workers’ compensation claims have many different phases and components that must be addressed before an award of benefits or medical expenses reimbursements can be made. During this process, the parties are allowed to offer different kinds of evidence to shed light on the nature and scope of the worker’s alleged injuries. There are specific rules regarding the type of evidence that the judge is allowed to consider. As competent Massachusetts work injury lawyers, we are well-versed in these rules and can ensure that your claim is handled fairly at all phases of the process.
The Massachusetts Court of Appeal published an opinion involving this issue. The worker was employed as a technician and facility manager. he moved to another company to perform similar job duties and filed a claim for aggravation of an existing back injury that he suffered while working for the new employer. As part of the claim process, the worker testified regarding the nature and extent of the injury and his medical history. The judge presiding over the claim denied his claim on the grounds that the worker was not a credible person and that he did not have an accurate grasp of the events surrounding his job history and injuries. The judge’s opinion stated that the hearing lacked any convincing evidence that the worker experienced an industrial accident, or that the worker’s medical history supported an injury.
The employee filed an appeal on the basis that the judge made an alleged error regarding rejecting the employee’s credibility. More specifically, the employee alleged that the judge impermissibly expanded the scope of the dispute by concluding that the worker did not incur an injury while working with either the first or second employer. In reviewing this allegation, the appellate court first recited the basic premise that an appellate court can only overturn a finding of a witness’ credibility if it was made in an arbitrary and capricious manner and not based on the evidence presented in the matter.