Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

indemnitysustained
indemnity

Related Cases

People v. Beardsley, 150 Mich. 206, 113 N.W. 1128, 13 L.R.A.N.S. 1020, 121 Am.St.Rep. 617, 13 Am.Ann.Cas. 39
View Case »
Haynes v. State of Wash., 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513
View Case »
Godfrey v. Godfrey, 894 A.2d 776, 2006 PA Super 39
View Case »
People v. Aiken, 45 N.Y.2d 394, 380 N.E.2d 272, 408 N.Y.S.2d 444
View Case »
Cheatham v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 286, 208 S.E.2d 760
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Carrier’s Case, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 502, 334 N.E.2d 633

Facts

The employee was first injured on October 3, 1966, while working for an employer insured by Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., leading to significant medical procedures and compensation payments. After starting work with a second employer insured by Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, the employee sustained a knee injury on June 7, 1967, for which Hartford paid compensation for 27 months. A lump-sum agreement was reached between the employee and Hartford on September 5, 1969, after which the employee sought additional compensation from Shelby for total incapacity due to the knee injury.

The employee was first injured on October 3, 1966, while working as a painter for an employer insured by Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. (Shelby). That injury led to the amputation of his life index finger and five other surgical procedures on his left hand. The employee received compensation from Shelby under ss 34 and 35A until May 22, 1967. At that time the employee started work with a second employer insured by Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (Hartford). On or about June 7, 1967, the employee injured his right knee after falling from a ladder while on the job.

Issue

Whether the lump-sum agreement between the employee and Hartford barred the employee from recovering further compensation from Shelby for incapacity caused in part by the second injury.

Whether the lump-sum agreement between the employee and Hartford barred the employee from recovering further compensation from Shelby for incapacity caused in part by the second injury.

Rule

The insurer covering the risk of a more recent injury that is causally related to the employee's disability is liable for the entire compensation for the current injury, regardless of the degree of causation.

It is well settled that ‘(t)he insurer covering the risk of . . . (a) more recent injury which is causally related to the employee's disability is liable for the entire compensation for the current injury.’

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the lump-sum agreement with Hartford effectively commuted the employee's right to future compensation payments, making Hartford solely liable for the compensation related to the knee injury. Since the incapacity was found to be partially caused by the second injury while Hartford was the insurer, allowing recovery from Shelby would result in a double recovery, which is not permitted under the statutory scheme.

Thus, in the present case, were it not for the lump sum agreement, the reviewing board's finding that the incapacity occurring after September 6, 1969, resulted in part from an injury occurring while Hartford was the insurer on the risk would bar recovery from Shelby.

Conclusion

The court reversed the previous decree and directed that a judgment be entered in favor of Shelby, disallowing further compensation claims from the employee based on the lump-sum agreement.

The final decree is reversed, and a judgment is to be entered by the Superior Court in accordance with this opinion.

Who won?

Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. prevailed in the case because the court found that the lump-sum agreement with Hartford barred the employee from seeking additional compensation from Shelby for incapacity related to the second injury.

Shelby argues that the lump sum agreement between Hartford and the employee barred him from further recovery for incapacity caused in party by the second injury.

You must be