right shoulder is concerned, she is capable of doing the essential duties of a cafeteria When Ms. Hallen suffers from a right shoulder impingement, is helper.” asked: “If this likely to be Dr. Sewall answer is He then wrote that: permanent.” said “The no.” Petitioner] does not have a shoulder problem. Her problem, I believe, is that “[The she has cervical spondylosis in her neck referring to her (Pet. Ex. 3 pp. shoulder.” On October 16, 2014, the Respondent denied the application for ADR Petitioner’s benefits. (Pet. Ex. 7, Stip.) On October 20, 2014, the Petitioner filed her appeal of the decision. Respondent’s (Pet. Ex. 8, Stip.) On April 15, 2015, Marc Linson, M.D. examined the Petitioner at the request of the Department of Industrial Accidents. The Petitioner told Dr. Linson that was “She injured lifting a rack from an oven on October 12, 2010 developing pain in her neck, (Pet. Ex. 11.) shoulder…). Discussion In order to qualify for an award of accidental disability retirement benefits under G.L. c. 32, § 7(1), an applicant must prove that she is totally and permanently unable to perform the essential duties of her job as the natural and proximate result of a personal injury sustained or hazard undergone, as a result of, and while in the performance of her duties, at some definite place and at some definite time. The applicant bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. , 255 (1996); Lisbon v. Contributory Ret. App. Bd., , 1019 (1984); No. Campbell v. Contributory Ret. App. Bd., McClain v. Barnstable Cnty. Ret. Bd, CR-12-173, at * 8 (DALA Apr. 17, 2015).
right shoulder is concerned, she is capable of doing the essential duties of a cafeteria helper.” When asked: “If Ms. Hallen suffers from a right shoulder impingement, is this likely to be permanent.” Dr. Sewall said “The answer is no.” He then wrote that: “[The Petitioner] does not have a shoulder problem. Her problem, I believe, is that she has cervical spondylosis in her neck referring to her shoulder.” (Pet. Ex. 3 pp. On October 16, 2014, the Respondent denied the Petitioner’s application for ADR benefits. (Pet. Ex. 7, Stip.) On October 20, 2014, the Petitioner filed her appeal of the Respondent’s decision. (Pet. Ex. 8, Stip.) On April 15, 2015, Marc Linson, M.D. examined the Petitioner at the request of the Department of Industrial Accidents. The Petitioner told Dr. Linson that “She was injured lifting a rack from an oven on October 12, 2010 developing pain in her neck, shoulder…). (Pet. Ex. 11.) Discussion In order to qualify for an award of accidental disability retirement benefits under G.L. c. 32, § 7(1), an applicant must prove that she is totally and permanently unable to perform the essential duties of her job as the natural and proximate result of a personal injury sustained or hazard undergone, as a result of, and while in the performance of her duties, at some definite place and at some definite time. The applicant bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. Lisbon v. Contributory Ret. App. Bd., , 255 (1996); Campbell v. Contributory Ret. App. Bd., , 1019 (1984); McClain v. Barnstable Cnty. Ret. Bd, No. CR-12-173, at * 8 (DALA Apr. 17, 2015).
Hallen%2520v.%2520State%2520%2520Bd.%2520of%2520Retirement%2520-%2520Decision%2520-%252006-09-2017.docx