954 N.E.2d 580
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- Pietila died July 2, 2000, in an employment-related motor vehicle accident; Curry sued hospital and physicians for medical malpractice and wrongful death.
- On April 30, 2007, the parties entered a high-low binding arbitration, yielding at least $300,000 and at most $1.5 million; plaintiff obtained $300,000 unallocated.
- Great American filed a statutory lien under G.L. c. 152, § 15 to recover workers’ compensation benefits paid to Pietila’s widow.
- Plaintiff sought declaratory relief; a 2009 Superior Court order held the $300,000 arbitration recovery was settlement proceeds and the lien valid.
- Parties proposed allocations; insurer sought $250,000 subject to the lien including loss of consortium and conscious pain and suffering; plaintiff proposed allocations minimizing lien exposure.
- A second judge found both proposed allocations lacking and ordered revised allocations to reflect net income (lienable) and non-lienable loss of consortium.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is loss of consortium recoverable under §15? | Loss of consortium is non-lienable; not compensable under §15. | Loss of consortium is a recoverable component of damages subject to lien. | Not reimbursable; loss of consortium not compensable under §15. |
| Is conscious pain and suffering reimbursable under §15? | Pain and suffering is not lienable under workers’ compensation. | Pain and suffering allocations fall within the settlement and may be liened. | Not reimbursable; conscious pain and suffering not compensable under §15. |
| Is the net income loss allocation lienable under §15? | Net income portion reflects loss that is lienable. | Only certain components are lienable; others are not. | Yes; the net income loss is lienable and reimbursable to the insurer. |
| Is the insurer’s appeal timely? | Appeal timeliness hinges on judgment entry date. | Notice filed within a week after judgment entry was dated September 30, 2010. | Timely; judgment entry date governs filing deadline. |
| Did the allocation fairness concerns affect the decision? | Fairness concerns could justify adjusting allocations. | Allocation fairness not a basis to defeat the lien; court limited to statutory injury analysis. | No concern; allocations validly reflect lienable vs. non-lienable components. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eisner v. Hertz Corp., 381 Mass. 127 (Mass. 1980) (loss of consortium not lienable under §15)
- Hultin v. Francis Harvey & Sons, Inc., 40 Mass. App. Ct. 692 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996) (settlement allocations; assignment of §15 rights after fact)
- Wilson's Case, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (loss of consortium payments not subject to lien)
- Sellers’s Case, 452 Mass. 804 (Mass. 2008) (workers’ compensation benefits; wage replacement focus)