Preview:

Ellis v. Dep't of Indus. Accidents Opinion Summary: Petitioners, attorneys who were the subject of disciplinary proceedings, challenged the validity of two aspects of the Commonwealth's workers' compensation, claiming (1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, 7C, which authorizes the senior judge of the department of industrial accidents to suspend the right of an attorney to "practice or appear before the department," violated the separation of powers explicitly provided for under article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; and (2) 452 Mass Code Regs. 1.19(3), which precludes recovery of an employee's costs and attorney's fees if the employee does not accept an insurer's offer to pay the full amount of the compensation claim, conflicted with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 15, 13A(5), which governs the award of attorney's fees and expenses where a claim proceeds to the hearing stage. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) chapter 152, section 7C is invalid as a violation of article 30 insofar as it authorizes the senior judge of the department to suspend attorneys from appearing before the department; and (2) section 1.19(3) is a valid interpretation of chapter 152, section 13A. Remanded. James N. ELLIS, Sr., & others [FN1] vs. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS. SJC-10956. Suffolk. March 5, 2012. - October 18, 2012. Workers' Compensation Act, Attorney's fees, Costs. Attorney at Law, Disciplinary proceeding. Constitutional Law, Separation of powers. CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on June 25, 2010. The case was reported by Gants, J. Max D. Stern (John Cushman with him) for the petitioners. William W. Porter, Assistant Attorney General, for the respondent. Present: Spina, Cordy, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. DUFFLY, J. The petitioners, attorneys who are licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth, challenge the validity of two aspects of the Commonwealth's workers' compensation system. They claim first that G.L. c. 152,

Download sjc-10956.pdf

Massachusetts Law