Summary of Opinion: Carroll Shershun's Case (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts)

Factual and Procedural Background

The employee was injured in the course of his employment on May 6, 1932, and received compensation for total disability until February 1933. At the insurer's application to discontinue compensation, a single member of the Industrial Accident Board held a hearing, found that disability had ceased, and authorized discontinuance of payments. The employee obtained review by the Industrial Accident Board, which, by decision filed April 1, 1933, found partial incapacity and ordered payments on that basis beginning at the time of the earlier discontinuance. On July 1, 1933, the insurer sent a letter to the board requesting discontinuance; on July 6, 1933, a notation "Discontinuance approved . . . J.A. P." appears and notice was sent to the parties that the board approved discontinuance "On the record," reserving the right of the parties to have the matter determined by hearing. The employee treated the July discontinuance as an ex parte nullity and sought from the Superior Court a decree based on the board's April 1 decision. The Superior Court entered a decree awarding compensation only through July 6, 1933, "with the right reserved to the parties to have the question of incapacity beyond that date determined by another hearing." The employee appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which affirmed the decree.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the order of discontinuance dated July 6, 1933, was a nullity because it was granted ex parte and not after a hearing.
Whether the July 6, 1933 order was final in nature.
Whether the question of the employee's entitlement to compensation after July 6, 1933, was properly before the Superior Court absent review of the July order by the Industrial Accident Board.
Whether the Superior Court's decree limiting compensation to the date of the July discontinuance (with right reserved for further hearing) should be affirmed.

Arguments of the Parties

Employee's Arguments

The employee contended that the July 6, 1933 discontinuance was granted ex parte and without a hearing, and therefore was a nullity; accordingly, the employee sought enforcement of the board's April 1, 1933 decision awarding compensation for partial incapacity beginning at the earlier discontinuance date.

Insurer's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the insurer's legal arguments presented to the court. The record does show that the insurer requested discontinuance by letter dated July 1, 1933, and that a notation appears approving discontinuance on July 6, 1933.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Volpe v. Sensatini, 249 Mass. 132, 134	This information was not available in the provided opinion.	Referenced in connection with the printed record entry showing the insurer's July letter and the notation "Discontinuance approved . . . J.A. P."
Kareske's Case, 250 Mass. 220, 224	That a reviewing board or a single member has jurisdiction to modify previous orders not final in their nature concerning compensation as changes in the employee's condition occur (statutory authority cited: G.L. c. 152, § 12).	Used to support the proposition that the board or a single member may modify prior nonfinal compensation orders as circumstances change.
Levangie's Case, 228 Mass. 213	That the Industrial Accident Board and its members are an administrative tribunal and not a court.	Applied to emphasize that the board operates administratively and that care must be taken to follow statutory procedure while recognizing the simplified procedures the act contemplates.
Palmer v. Clark, 106 Mass. 373, 389	That acts of an administrative body partaking of judicial function do not always require a formal hearing beforehand.	Cited as part of authorities indicating that informal or preliminary administrative orders need not always be preceded by formal hearings.
Hanley v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 215 Mass. 425, 428-429	That certain administrative acts that are judicial in nature may be done without formal prior hearing.	Used with other authorities to show that the preliminary nature of some administrative orders does not render them void for informality.
Clark v. New England Telephone Telegraph Co. 229 Mass. 1, 10	That formal hearings are not always required for certain administrative determinations that may involve judicial aspects.	Supported the court's discussion that an informal and preliminary administrative order is not necessarily invalid for lack of a prior formal hearing.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by reference to the statutory scheme and the administrative nature of the Industrial Accident Board. It observed:

The board and its single members have jurisdiction under the Workmen's Compensation Act to modify prior nonfinal compensation orders as the injured employee's condition changes (citing G.L. c. 152, § 12 and related authority).
Compensation previously begun may be discontinued with the approval of the board or a member (citing G.L. c. 152, § 29), and no statutory time limit exists for making such changes.
The July 6, 1933 order was interlocutory and preliminary in nature, intended to be followed by a hearing where the merits could be investigated and determined; it was not final.
Given that the board is an administrative tribunal (not a court), the act's procedures are to be "as simple and summary as reasonably may be," and an informal preliminary order is entitled to some respect and to immediate review under the statute rather than being treated as void.
Errors of fact or law by a single member (except in matters within his final jurisdiction) are to be corrected by the board on review; the Superior Court is generally invoked only to correct errors alleged to have been committed by the board in rendering more permanent decisions. Thus, the appropriate course was for the employee to seek review of the July order before the Industrial Accident Board rather than to attempt to have the Superior Court decide a prefatory procedural matter not ripe for ultimate action by that court.
The trial judge's decree, which awarded compensation only through July 6, 1933 while expressly reserving the right to a hearing on incapacity beyond that date, was sufficiently favorable to the employee and within the board's prerogative to determine procedure.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The decree of the Superior Court was affirmed.

Implications:

Direct effect: The employee was entitled to compensation on the basis of partial incapacity only up to July 6, 1933, as reflected in the Superior Court's decree, which reserved to the parties the right to have the question of incapacity beyond that date determined by another hearing.
Procedural implication: The court confirmed that an order of discontinuance by a single member that is preliminary in nature is not a nullity and is subject to review first by the Industrial Accident Board; generally, alleged errors by a single member should be reviewed by the board before resort to the Superior Court, which is mainly available after a decision of the board has been rendered.
No broader new precedent beyond the application of the statutory scheme and principles explained in the opinion was announced; the decision affirms the existing approach to administrative orders and review under the Workmen's Compensation Act as described in the opinion.

Decree affirmed.

Show full summary ...

CARROLL SHERSHUN'S CASE.

Workmen's Compensation Act, Discontinuance of compensation, Review by board, Jurisdiction of Superior Court.

Upon an application by the insurer in proceedings under the workmen's compensation act, a single member of the Industrial Accident Board after a hearing found that disability had ceased and authorized the insurer to discontinue compensation, but the Industrial Accident Board, on review in April, found that there was partial incapacity, and payments based thereon were ordered made as of a date beginning at the time of discontinuance of payments based on total disability. In July following, a single member, on representations made by letter by the insurer, ordered discontinuance of compensation and the employee was notified. Without seeking a review by the board of such order, the employee sought from the Superior Court the entry of a decree based on the decision of April on the theory that the discontinuance, having been granted ex parte and not after a hearing, was a nullity. In the Superior Court, a decree was entered awarding compensation only to the date of the July discontinuance, "with the right reserved to the parties to have the question of incapacity beyond that date determined by another hearing." Held, that (1) The order of July was not a nullity; (2) The order of July was not final; (3) The question, whether the employee was entitled to compensation after July, was not properly before the Superior Court, the action of the single member not having been reviewed by the board; (4) The decree of the Superior Court was affirmed. While there is no specific provision to that effect, the whole scheme of the workmen's compensation act imports that alleged errors of a single member of the Industrial Accident Board must be reviewed first by the board, and that in the main resort can be had to the Superior Court only after a decision has been rendered by the board.

RUGG, C.J.

This is a case under the workmen's compensation act. The employee received an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on May 6, 1932. He was paid compensation based on total disability until February, 1933, when there was a hearing on the application of the insurer to discontinue compensation on the ground that incapacity had ceased. The single member found that disability had ceased and authorized the insurer to discontinue compensation. The Industrial Accident Board, on a review held at the request of the employee, found by decision filed on April 1, 1933, that there was partial incapacity and payments based thereon were ordered made beginning at the time of discontinuance of payments based on total disability. There is printed in the record a letter under date of July 1, 1933, from the insurer directed to the Industrial Accident Board, setting forth certain facts and requesting the board to grant a discontinuance of further compensation. On this letter appears under date of July 6, 1933, "Discontinuance approved . . . J.A. P." See Volpe v. Sensatini, 249 Mass. 132, 134. Under date of July 6, 1933, notice was sent to the employee and to the insurer that the Industrial Accident Board approved the discontinuance of compensation payments based "On the record" and that the right was reserved to the parties to have the matter determined by hearing. It was conceded at the argument at the bar of this court that this notice was issued under the sanction of the secretary of the board, although the copy printed in the record does not bear his signature. The employee thereupon sought from the Superior Court the entry of a decree based on the decision of the board of April 1, 1933, on the theory that the discontinuance of July 6, 1933, having been granted by an ex parte suspension of payments previously ordered to be paid and not after a hearing, was a nullity. In the Superior Court a decree was entered to the effect that the employee was entitled to compensation on the basis of partial incapacity up to July 6, 1933, the date of discontinuance, "with the right reserved to the parties to have the question of incapacity beyond July 6, 1933, determined by another hearing." The appeal of the employee brings the case here.

The case appears to have been heard in the Superior Court and has been argued before us on the footing that the order of discontinuance of July 6, 1933, was made by a single member and not by the Industrial Accident Board. It will be treated in that respect as it has been argued.

There can be no doubt of the jurisdiction of the reviewing board or of a single member to modify previous orders not final in their nature concerning compensation as changes occur in the condition of the injured employee. G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 152, § 12. Kareske's Case, 250 Mass. 220, 224. Likewise, compensation when once begun to be paid may be discontinued with the approval of the Industrial Accident Board or a member thereof. G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 152, § 29. No time is fixed for making such change. It may be done after even a brief interval. The order of July 6, 1933, was in no sense final. It was highly interlocutory in nature. It was a preliminary order. It was manifestly designed to be followed by a hearing, where the merits could be investigated and determined. Whether it was right or not was a matter to be determined by further proceedings under the act. In any event, it cannot be ignored by any party to it. If the employee did not want further hearing on the merits he should have sought review of the order of July 6, 1933, before the Industrial Accident Board. The Industrial Accident Board and its members in the administration of the workmen's compensation act constitute not a court but only an administrative tribunal. Levangie's Case, 228 Mass. 213. There must be scrupulous care to do justice in conformity to the terms of the statute. But procedure is to be "as simple and summary as reasonably may be." G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 152, § 5. An informal and preliminary order such as is here assailed on its face is not final, is entitled to some respect as the act of an administrative board, and is subject to immediate review under the statute. Acts partaking much more of the judicial function than the order here attacked do not need to be preceded by a formal hearing. Palmer v. Clark, 106 Mass. 373, 389. Hanley v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 215 Mass. 425, 428-429. Clark v. New England Telephone Telegraph Co. 229 Mass. 1, 10. Whether that principle applies to such an order need not be determined. The frame of the workmen's compensation act is that errors of fact or of law committed by the single member, except in cases under his final jurisdiction, are to be considered and corrected by the board on review. G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 152, §§ 7, 8, 8A, 10, 12. Jurisdiction of the Superior Court is to be invoked in general only for correction of errors alleged to have been committed by the Industrial Accident Board in rendering decisions more or less permanent in character. While there is no specific provision to that effect, the whole scheme of the act imports that alleged errors of a single member must be reviewed first by the board, and that in the main resort can be had to the court only after a decision has been rendered by the board. The question here sought to be presented is one of procedure preliminary to the ascertainment of the real issue whether there ought to be a change in the amount to be paid to the employee. The ruling of the trial judge was at least sufficiently favorable to the employee to the effect that, since right of hearing was expressly preserved to him, the precise procedure was within the discretion of the board. There was no ground for attempting to forestall the ultimate decision of the board by endeavoring to force the Superior Court to decide upon prefatory matter not ripe for its ultimate action.