11 Mass. App. Ct. 904 | Mass. App. Ct. | 1981
There was evidence in the several medical opinions received by the reviewing board which warranted its finding that the employee was “capable of light part-time sedentary work” and could, with treatment, resume full-time work. The decision of the board is to stand unless it is unsupported by evidence, including all rational inferences which may be drawn from it. Chapman’s Case, 321 Mass. 705, 707 (1947). Vouniseas’s Case, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 133, 134 (1975). Carnute’s Case, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 814, 815 (1980). It follows that the board was justified in concluding that the employee was not
The employee claims the board erred in denying his request to rebut the reports of the impartial physicians. On the record before us we cannot establish the date when the impartial physicians’ reports were furnished. Nor does a request to rebut those reports appear in the record. We are, thus, without a factual basis for deciding the question. Contrast Benham’s Case, 356 Mass. 196, 199-200 (1969). Compare Phillips’s Case, 278 Mass. 194, 196 (1932); Locke, Workmen’s Compensation § 493 n.71 (1968). We are not bound to inquire outside the record furnished to us by the parties. Kunen v. First Agricultural Natl. Bank, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 684, 689-690 (1978).
Judgment affirmed.
