Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed a final decree granting compensation to the widow of an employee who died from cancer following surgery for a work-related hernia. The employee, aged sixty-four, had undergone a hernia operation, during which stomach cancer was discovered, leading to his death soon after. The widow's claim relied on expert testimony that the hernia surgery depleted the employee's physical reserves, accelerating his cancer progression. The insurer's expert argued the death was solely attributable to cancer. A reviewing board member found a causal link between the surgery and the expedited progression of cancer, thus entitling the widow to compensation under the workmen's compensation act. The insurer's objections to the credibility of the claimant's expert witness and the causal finding were not preserved for appeal. The court highlighted that it was within the board's discretion to assess the expert testimony's credibility. Consequently, the court upheld the decree, awarding costs and reasonable expenses to the claimant, reinforcing the board's findings as adequately supported by evidence.
Legal Issues Addressed
Award of Costs and Expensessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court awarded costs and reasonable expenses to the claimant, recognizing the validity of the compensation claim.
Reasoning: The court concluded that the finding of a causal relationship was supported by evidence and affirmed the decree, allowing costs and reasonable expenses to the claimant.
Causal Relationship in Workmen's Compensation Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the finding of a causal link between the employee's hernia operation and the progression of cancer, which was essential for awarding compensation to the widow.
Reasoning: The single member of the reviewing board found a causal link between the hernia operation and the hastening of the employee's death due to cancer, affirming that the widow was entitled to compensation under the workmen's compensation act.
Credibility and Weight of Expert Testimonysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that it was within the reviewing board's discretion to determine the credibility of expert testimony, despite the insurer's challenges.
Reasoning: The insurer challenged the credibility of the claimant's medical witness and the finding of a causal relationship. However, the court noted that the insurer failed to preserve exceptions for review, and even if there were inconsistencies in the testimony, it was within the discretion of the reviewing board to credit portions of the expert’s testimony.
Preservation of Exceptions for Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The insurer's failure to preserve exceptions for review was noted by the court, thereby affirming the lower board's decision without further scrutiny.
Reasoning: The insurer challenged the credibility of the claimant's medical witness and the finding of a causal relationship. However, the court noted that the insurer failed to preserve exceptions for review...