Opinion
11-P-819
03-07-2012
JOSE IVAN CHICO v. MERRIMACK EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, & others.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
We discern no error in the order of the motion judge allowing the motion of defendant Merrimack Employment Services, LLC (Merrimack) for summary judgment, or in his order denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint, for substantially the reasons articulated by the motion judge in his memoranda of decision explaining his rulings. As explained by the motion judge, the plaintiff's initial claims against Merrimack are barred by the exclusivity provision of the New Hampshire statute under which the plaintiff applied for, and obtained, workers compensation benefits, see N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 281- A:8, and the provisions of G. L. c. 152, §§ 66 and 67, do not furnish an independent right of recovery against Merrimack. The motion judge likewise correctly denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint on grounds of futility, based on his conclusion that choice of law principles dictate that New Hampshire law should apply to the claims proposed by the second amended complaint.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Green & Trainor, JJ.),