A Massachusetts appellate court held that an insurer's assumption of payment does not purport to constitute a waiver of its right to contest coverage with respect to another insurer. Accordingly, where the first insurer initially evaluated the matter as a recurrence claim and paid benefits, that payment did not alter the liability of a second insurer for the claim once the employee's injury was adjudicated a new injury, held the court. The Board of Review had substantial equitable powers. The appellate court added that any other construction of the successive insurer rule would undermine the ameliorative purpose of the workers’ compensation statute, which was to ensure that the worker was not adversely affected by a dispute between carriers as to coverage.
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Bolduc’s Case, 2013 Mass. App. LEXIS 176 (Dec. 4, 2013) [2013 Mass. App. LEXIS 176 (Dec. 4, 2013)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 153.01 [153.01]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
Special Discount Price $79*; Books shipping now to customers!
Keep track of how the workers' comp landscape is changing with this 400+ page compendium. Here's what you get:
View the brochure & table of contents.
View sample pages.
Order online or contact Christine Hyatt at ph. 937-247-8166, or Email: Christine.E.Hyatt@lexisnexis.com.
PROMO CODE: WCEIA
*Price does not include sales tax, shipping or handling. Price subject to change without notice. Discount cannot be combined with other offers. Expires 12/31/2013.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site