Opinion
16-P-1527 16-P-1721
05-02-2018
NIKLAUS J. WARD'S CASE (and a companion case).
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such 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. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
For convenience we discuss in one memorandum and order two cases involving the same employer and arising from the same factual background. Pursuant to, and for the reasons stated in the decision of this court in Janocha's Case, Mass. App. Ct. No. 16-P-1181, issued this day, we affirm the decisions of the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents on appeal in Ward's Case, Mass. App. Ct. No. 16-P-1527, and Van Sickle's Case, Mass. App. Ct. No. 16-P-1721.
The Travelers Casualty & Surety Company's reinsurance contract at issue in the instant appeals did not contain a clause that required the terms of the contract to conform to Massachusetts workers' compensation law. We conclude that neither that fact, nor any other factual differences in the three cases, provides grounds to distinguish our analysis in Janocha's Case.
Decisions of the reviewing board affirmed.
By the Court (Neyman, Henry & Lemire, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: May 2, 2018.