http://joanstilesmusic.com/index_test.html
Lawyers for Michael Sellers had argued in lower courta and before a hearing board that he was entitledxto two-thirds wages from both employers. Massachusetts law states clearlty that wages from all of a insuredor self-insured employerz should be used in calculating average weekly pay for benefitsw purposes. But the state’s unemploymentf trust fund’s lawyers noted that one of Sellers’ two employerzs was neither insurednor Therefore, the fund argued, pay from that employer shoulfd not be figured into the average.
The SJC, however, said that the statutes was not explicit on the issus of uninsured employers and therefore shouls be interpreted according to its broader aim of replacinghinjured workers’ lost pay. “Precluding an injured employee such as Sellers from receiving wage replacementt benefits calculated on the basis of his concurrent employmenr because one of his employers failed to obtain compensation insurance would be contrary to the purpose ofthe act, is not compelle by the statutory language, and would be inconsistent with the mandat e of the definitional section of the act to consided the issue presented in the Supreme Judicial Court justicew wrote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment