BOARD No. 001384-93Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents
Filed: September 26, 1997
REVIEWING BOARD DECISION
(Judges Levine, Wilson and Fischel)
APPEARANCES
Barney J. Murphree, Jr., Esq., at the hearing
David G. Sullivan, Esq., on appeal, for the employee
Patricia A. Costigan, Esq., for the self-insurer
LEVINE, J.
The employee appeals from a decision in which an administrative judge denied and dismissed her claim for weekly incapacity benefits beyond the period of the self-insurer’s payment without prejudice under § 8 (1).
The employee argues, and the self-insurer concedes, that the decision is arbitrary and capricious insofar as the judge dismissed a § 36 claim which the employee had specifically reserved. (Dec. 2, 9.) We reverse that dismissal.
The employee also argues that the judge dismissed her claim for § 30 medical benefits, and this is inconsistent with his general finding that her treatment had been causally related to the industrial injury, reasonable and necessary, particularly since the self-insurer accepted liability for her industrial accident. (Dec. 2, 9-10.) The self-insurer agrees with the employee that the decision is inconsistent in that regard. However, no particular unpaid medical bills were in dispute. We do not read the judge’s general denial and dismissal of the employee’s claim to preclude the employee’s entitlement to § 30 benefits. The judge found that the employee is entitled to § 30 benefits (Dec. 9). We read the judge’s decision only to deny the specific compensation requested which, in this case, was weekly benefits following the payment without prejudice period. If the employee has bills which are unpaid or future treatment which is disputed, the employee may bring a claim for them. Even if an employee is denied weekly benefits, the employee is entitled to on-going § 30 benefits, as long as they are necessary, reasonable and related to the accepted industrial injury. Debrosky v. OxfordManor Nursing Home, 11 Mass. Workers’ Comp. Rep. (April 15, 1997).Tigamo v. Acme Boot Co., 8 Mass. Workers’ Comp. Rep. 145, 148 (1994).
In the circumstances of the present case, the employee was not entitled to attorney’s fees. See Paygai v. Wrentham StateSchool, 10 Mass. Workers’ Comp. Rep. 685, 686 (1996).[1] The remainder of the decision is summarily affirmed.
So ordered.
_____________________________ Frederick E. Levine Administrative Law Judge
_____________________________ Sara Holmes Wilson Administrative Law Judge _____________________________ Carolynn N. Fischel Administrative Law Judge
Filed: September 26, 1997