many activities pursued in its place would have contributed. When this is so, causation in fact is an inadequate test.” 385 Mass. 590, 594 (1982); Zerofski’s Case, See also Campbell v. 17 Mass. App. Ct. at 1018. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., A medical panel’s certificate as to disability, its permanence and work-related causation is merely possibility.” 341 Mass. 611, “medical Moore v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 616 (1961). It is not conclusive of the ultimate fact of causation. Wakefield Contributory 352 Mass. at 502 (1967); Retirement Bd. v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., Noone v. 20 Mass. App. Ct. 634, 641 (1985); 20 Mass. App. Ct. at Contributory Appeal Bd., Blanchette, 485 (1985). CRAB makes the final determination of whether causation is proved based on the facts and evidence, both medical and non-medical. Blanchette, supra; see also Kelley v. 341 Mass. 611, 616 (1961). Contributory Retirement Appeals Bd., Mr. Clark listed two dates of injury on his application for disability retirement, September 7, 2011 and April 27, 2012. Mr. Clark’s earlier February 24, 2010 neck injury was ineligible because it not occur while in the performance of [his] duties.” See, e.g. Damiano v. “did 72 Mass. App. Ct. 260 (2008). After the February 24, 2010 Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., neck injury, Mr. Clark worked for approximately three and a half months, then was medically excused for three and a half months. During his medical absence, Mr. Clark received epidural steroid injections and underwent physical therapy. He was medically cleared for work on September 22, 2010. Mr. Clark then began using sick time on weekends and holidays, to the extent that on April 8, 2011 Mr. Ryan placed him on the restricted list for sixty days, requiring him to submit a physician’s note within twenty-four hours of taking sick leave. On September 7, 2011, Mr. Clark pinched a nerve while throwing a bag of brush onto the bag leaf truck. After the incident, he continued working for an hour and a half before going to
many activities pursued in its place would have contributed. When this is so, causation in fact is an inadequate test.” Zerofski’s Case, 385 Mass. 590, 594 (1982); See also Campbell v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 17 Mass. App. Ct. at 1018. A medical panel’s certificate as to disability, its permanence and work-related causation is merely “medical possibility.” Moore v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 341 Mass. 611, 616 (1961). It is not conclusive of the ultimate fact of causation. Wakefield Contributory Retirement Bd. v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 352 Mass. at 502 (1967); Noone v. Contributory Appeal Bd., 20 Mass. App. Ct. 634, 641 (1985); Blanchette, 20 Mass. App. Ct. at 485 (1985). CRAB makes the final determination of whether causation is proved based on the facts and evidence, both medical and non-medical. Blanchette, supra; see also Kelley v. Contributory Retirement Appeals Bd., 341 Mass. 611, 616 (1961). Mr. Clark listed two dates of injury on his application for disability retirement, September 7, 2011 and April 27, 2012. Mr. Clark’s earlier February 24, 2010 neck injury was ineligible because it “did not occur while in the performance of [his] duties.” See, e.g. Damiano v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 260 (2008). After the February 24, 2010 neck injury, Mr. Clark worked for approximately three and a half months, then was medically excused for three and a half months. During his medical absence, Mr. Clark received epidural steroid injections and underwent physical therapy. He was medically cleared for work on September 22, 2010. Mr. Clark then began using sick time on weekends and holidays, to the extent that on April 8, 2011 Mr. Ryan placed him on the restricted list for sixty days, requiring him to submit a physician’s note within twenty-four hours of taking sick leave. On September 7, 2011, Mr. Clark pinched a nerve while throwing a bag of brush onto the bag leaf truck. After the incident, he continued working for an hour and a half before going to