 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle v. Department Of Industrial Accidents9/7/2000
Norfolk.
April 6, 2000.
Practice, Civil, Relief in the nature of certiorari, Declaratory proceeding. Declaratory Relief. Workers' Compensation Act, Vocational rehabilitation benefits. Due Process of Law, Administrative hearing. Statute, Construction.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 25, 1997.
A motion to dismiss was heard by Nonnie S. Burnes, J.
The case was submitted on briefs.
John J. Doyle claims on appeal that it was error for a Superior Court judge to have dismissed the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief which Doyle brought against the Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA). Doyle's complaint arises from the fact that the DIA, despite initially having deemed Doyle suitable for vocational rehabilitation benefits and having so advised him, thereafter reversed its decision. Doyle maintains that the DIA's procedures for adjudicating claims for vocational rehabilitation benefits deprive claimants, such as himself, of their right to due process of law.
The pertinent facts, drawn from the face of Doyle's complaint, are these. Doyle was employed by August A. Busch & Company (Busch) from 1982 until June, 1993. He was rendered totally and permanently disabled from his employment at Busch after suffering a number of work related back injuries.
On August 8, 1994, Teresa Rogg, a regional rehabilitation review officer from the DIA's office of education and vocational rehabilitation (OEVR), deemed Doyle suitable for vocational rehabilitation benefits. Subsequently, Doyle met with Joseph Goodman, a rehabilitation counselor, for an initial vocational assessment. Goodman advised Rogg that a cost analysis should be performed and questioned whether Doyle would benefit from vocational rehabilitation services. On December 6, 1994, Rogg proposed that Busch pay for the remainder of Doyle's undergraduate degree and gave Busch the required ten days to review this proposal. Thereafter, Rogg granted Busch's request for an extension without specifying a new deadline.
On February 21, 1995, Busch obtained a research analysis indicating that there was no difference in the employability of an individual with either a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) or a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in psychology for entry level positions. Rogg then reversed her initial suitability determination and issued a new determination to the effect that Doyle was not a suitable candidate for vocational rehabilitation benefits based upon the study commissioned by Busch and the assumption that Doyle had sufficient credits to petition for a B.A. degree in psychology. Doyle appealed this determination to the commissioner of the DIA pursuant to G. L. c. 152, Sect. 30H. On July 9, 1996, the commissioner affirmed OEVR's determination without a hearing.
Doyle subsequently filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Superior Court which can be read as questioning the constitutionality of the DIA's procedures for adjudicating claims regarding vocational rehabilitation benefits pursuant to G. L. c. 152, Sect. 30H. Doyle alleges violations of due process rights accorded him under the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
A Superior Court judge dismissed Doyle's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction insofar as the claim asserted was in the nature of certiorari, G. L. c. 249, Sect. 4, but had not been filed within the sixty-day statutory time period. Doyle maintains this was error because the complaint challenges the constitutionality of the DIA's procedures, a question appropriate for declaratory relief.
Page 1 2 3 4 Massachusetts Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|