McCARTHY, J.
The employee appeals the decision of the administrative judge denying and dismissing his claim.
The employee was an HVAC mechanics service person who delivered and serviced air-conditioning and heating equipment. The employee testified that on November 18, 1991, while cleaning up a work site, he injured his lower back as he picked up a ladder. He testified that he immediately reported the incident to his coworker and supervisor but finished his work for the day and sought medical treatment the following day. He has not returned to work since November 18, 1991 although he testified that he felt he could do some work at the time of the hearing and had carried some boxes of stereo equipment in January, 1992.
Eighteen pages of the administrative judge's decision simply recite testimony. Some of the recitation is at variance with the uncontroverted testimony. The next part of the decision is captioned "Subsidiary Findings of Fact". Oddly, this heading is followed by stipulations of the parties and rulings on objections made at the medical depositions. No subsidiary factual findings were made. The decision concludes with eight General Findings, two of which follow:
For example, the administrative judge reported that the employee was on a ladder while the employee's unopposed testimony was that he wascarrying a ladder. The administrative judge also reported that the employee's claim was for § 34 temporary and total incapacity benefits from November 18, 1991 to date and continuing while the record shows that the employee's motion to amend his claim to § 34 benefits from November 18, 1991 to January 1, 1992 and § 35 temporary partial incapacity benefits from January 2, 1992 to date and continuing was allowed by the judge.
I do not find that the employee's testimony is credible concerning his industrial accident and concerning his disability following his alleged industrial accident.
I do not find that the employee was fraudulent, Pursuant to Ch. 152, § 14 in making and prosecuting this claim.
These two findings, without further explanation, seem contradictory. Does the judge believe and find that the employee's statement that, "We were working with 8-, 10-, 12-foot ladders, and I believe I was handling a 10- or 12-foot ladder when I got into a position when I was turning to my side, and when I picked it up to swing around, I got a very painful pain in my lower back." (Tr. 33, 34) is fabricated? Where the administrative judge has not found fraud, and where the employee's testimony is uncontroverted and consistent with both the first report of injury and the hospital medical history (Dec. 9), further explanation of the administrative judge's finding is warranted.
Fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him . . . A false representation of a matter of fact . . . which deceives or is intended to deceive. Black's Law Dictionary 712 (6th ed. 1990).
We recommit this case to the same administrative judge for further findings. As required by § 11B of the Act the decision shall ". . . set forth the issues in controversy, the decision on each and a brief statement of the grounds for each such decision". . . The administrative judge may take additional testimony at his discretion.
So ordered.
____________________________________ William A. McCarthy Administrative Law Judge
____________________________________ Carolynn N. Fischel Administrative Law Judge
____________________________________ Sara Holmes Wilson Administrative Law Judge
Filed: October 10, 1995