Opinion
No. 12–P–837.
2013-05-10
Howard RICHARDS'S CASE.
By the Court (TRAINOR, KATZMANN & SIKORA, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The pro se plaintiff appeals from the denial of his claim for workers' compensation benefits under G.L. c. 152. As part of his employment duties, the plaintiff was required to remove Perlite, a chemical substance, from trailers over several days. He was exposed to the substance and sought medical attention, where he complained that the exposure not only caused skin irritation and burning, but also memory loss, blurred vision, and an overall deterioration of his health. This injury forms the basis of his workers' compensation claim.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, including medical records, an administrative judge dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff (1) did not sustain a compensable personal injury arising from his employment and (2) failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between the Perlite and his injuries. The plaintiff appealed to the reviewing board, which summarily affirmed the dismissal. The appeal is now before us pursuant to G.L. c. 152, § 12(2).
“We review a board's decision regarding workers' compensation benefits under the usual standard for appeal from a final decision of an administrative agency set forth in G.L. c. 30A, § 14(7), except that we do not review whether the board's decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Wadsworth's Case, 461 Mass. 675, 679 (2012). The plaintiff argues that the board erred in its interpretation of the workers' compensation statute. Specifically, he claims that he is entitled to compensation because he missed more than five calendar days for an injury suffered at work. See G.L. c. 152, §§ 6, 29, 34, 35. We disagree.
For purposes of this appeal, we are ignoring the serious deficiencies in the plaintiff's brief. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975).
The employee has “[t]he burden of proving the essential facts necessary to establish a case warranting the payment of compensation....” Sponatski's Case, 220 Mass. 526, 527–528 (1915). At the hearing, the plaintiff did nothing more than repeat his assertion that exposure to Perlite caused his injury. The independent medical examiner concluded that the plaintiff did not suffer any injury, medical condition, or disability from his exposure to Perlite. Similarly, the insurer's medical examiner, whose testimony the administrative judge credited, opined that there was no causal connection between the Perlite and the injuries claimed by the plaintiff.
From these facts alone, it is clear that the plaintiff did not meet his required burden of proof. See Sponatski's Case, supra. Therefore, there was no error of law and the reviewing board correctly affirmed.
We also note that the doctor who treated the plaintiff two days after the exposure cleared him to return to work the next day.
Decision of reviewing board affirmed.