Paananen v. Rhodes, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 12

Summary

The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that his employment was covered as hazardous employment under G.L. c. 152, § 66. The evidence did not show that his landscaping and carpentry work was connected to a construction project, and the court entered judgment for the defendant.

Holdings

1. The plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that his employment at the Hanson camp was within a hazardous employment determined by the Commissioner of Labor and Industries and subject to mandatory coverage under G.L.c. 152.
2. The publication admitted in evidence did not purport to be the exact determination made by the Commissioner and filed as a regulation, and it was insufficient by itself to establish the applicability of the regulation to the plaintiff's employment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the Commissioner of Labor and Industries had determined the plaintiff's employment to be hazardous and that the employment was required to be covered under the Massachusetts Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. Whether the publication listing hazardous occupations was sufficient evidence of the applicable administrative determination or regulation.
3. Whether the Appeals Court should order judgment for the defendant or grant a new trial after sustaining the defendant's exceptions.

Disposition

reversed