Civil Proceedings - John Tobin and the Department of Industrial Accidents - Assignment Example

Legal BriefParties:In this case, the plaintiff is John Tobin and the defendant is the Department of Industrial Accidents. This case is an illustration of civil proceedings as the case involves a dispute between the individual and the organization. It focuses more on resolving the dispute concerning the right of entitlement to workers compensation rather than punishment. John Tobin has filed an appeal against the findings of the Department of Industrial accidents who upheld the decisions passed by the administrative judge to terminate the benefits received by the employee.

The plaintiff seeks that his case should be remanded to a lower judge so that more evidence can be gathered related to the statue applicable to his case. In addition, he seeks to prove that he is entitled to receive social security benefits and employee pension despite being inactive for two years in the labour market.The employees appeal was submitted in and heard by a single judge in the Appeals Court. The Appeals Court upheld the orders of the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents.

His request that this issue should be remanded to a lower judge for further consideration of evidence and findings stands rejected. Furthermore, the Court rejected the employees contention based on the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)[TOB97]. FactsJohn Tobin started working as the custodian of Stoughton Police department in 1978. In 1988, he injured his shoulder while cleaning an overhead light fixture. Consequently, surgical procedures were performed on his shoulder; He received two payments out of the workers compensation benefit on 15th October 1988 and 29th October 1991.

John Tobin had been unemployed for two years and over the age of sixty-five by 29th October 1991 when he received the second payment. The administrative judge passed an order that John Tobin is not entitled to receive employee benefits. He appealed against the order to the reviewing board but two out of the three judges on board affirmed the orders passed by the administrative judge.Legal Provisions:1. The case is subject to General Laws c. 152, § 35E as revised by St.1991, c. 398, § 66. 2.

He does need meet the criteria of a handicapped person as stated in the General Law c. 152, § 75B.3. Also subject to General Law c. 152, § 2AIssues: The issues relate to whether John Tobin is entitled to receive employee benefits as he is above sixty-five years of age and has been out of labour market for over two years. Additionally, if he is entitled to receive compensation payments as he was injured prior to the amendment in the General Law, which laid down certain restrictions on compensation payments.

Decision: The orders of the reviewing board were affirmed so they won this case. The Appeals Court rejected the employees argument that the General Laws c. 152, § 35 are in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Declaration of the Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution. Moreover, his appeal for the case to be considered by a lower judge was also rejected.Rule of the case: The case is a practical demonstration of the General Laws c, 152, §§ 34 and 35.

It is explicitly clear that an employee of sixty five years of age and above , who has been unemployed for a period exceeding two years and entitled to employee benefits or pension shall not be eligible to receive such benefits whether wholly or partially; except, if he can prove that he was unemployed by the reason of injury. Reasons:That dual payments from Workers Compensation Fund as well as pension payments from social security funds should not be more than the average weekly earnings of an employee prior to his being injured.

In addition, the amendment in the General Law, which lays down certain restrictions on compensation payment, applies retrospectively to all cases so the time of Tobin’s injury is irrelevant.Concurring and Dissenting opinion: These are concurring opinions as the Appeals Court affirmed the orders passed by the reviewing Board of Industrial Accidents who had upheld the order of the administrative judge.Legal Terminology: Suspect: A group of individuals who are discriminated against because of religion, nationality and subject to detailed analyses.

Quasi suspect: A group of people who are discriminated against because of sex and such cases are subject to intermediate scrutiny.Relationship: N/AWorks CitedTOB97: , (CASE),