## Facts

- Mark Cerasoli was employed by Hale Development.
- He alleged that on September 21, 1992, he injured his back at work while lifting a heavy bag of cement.
- Hale Development’s insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, voluntarily paid weekly workers’ compensation benefits, without prejudice, until September 18, 1993.
- After voluntary payments ended, Cerasoli filed a formal claim at the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents seeking incapacity and medical benefits.
- Liberty Mutual denied the claim, disputing that a compensable work injury occurred and disputing causal relationship and disability, including contentions that witnesses and documents did not support the claimed work injury and that any condition preexisted the alleged incident.
- The claim proceeded through the § 10A process to a conference, where liability remained contested.
- On November 22, 1993, an administrative judge issued a “blanket” conference order denying the claim. The order did not set out specific findings on liability, causation, or other elements, and did not order medical treatment.
- Cerasoli did not appeal the November 1993 conference order, did not seek leave to file a late appeal, and did not pursue relief in Superior Court under G.L. c. 152, § 12.
- On or about December 27, 1995, Cerasoli filed a new workers’ compensation claim asserting original liability for the same September 21, 1992 date of injury.
- In the later proceedings, the insurer raised res judicata/claim-preclusion based on the unappealed 1993 conference denial.
- An administrative judge allowed the later claim to go forward on the ground that the 1993 blanket denial had no preclusive effect because it did not state what issues were decided; the insurer appealed to the Reviewing Board.

## Issues

1. Whether an unappealed § 10A conference order that denies a workers’ compensation claim in a blanket form is a final determination of original liability that precludes a later, duplicative original-liability claim for the same date of injury.
2. Whether the absence of express findings or stated reasons in the conference order prevents the order from having claim-preclusive effect on the question of original liability.

## Decision

- The Reviewing Board reversed the administrative judge’s decision that had permitted the second claim to proceed.
- The Board held that the unappealed November 22, 1993 § 10A conference order finally resolved the original-liability dispute for the September 21, 1992 alleged injury.
- The Board ruled that Cerasoli was barred from pursuing a second original-liability claim for the same injury date after allowing the first denial to become final.
- The Board denied the second claim.

## Legal Principles

- An unappealed § 10A conference order denying a claim can operate as a final administrative adjudication of original liability between the parties for that date of injury.
- A blanket denial at conference may have claim-preclusive effect even if it contains no detailed findings; where the claim seeks incapacity and medical benefits and the order denies the claim, the order necessarily rejects compensability.
- A claimant cannot avoid the binding effect of a final conference denial by filing a new, duplicative original-liability claim based on the same alleged injury and date.
- The proper methods to challenge an adverse conference order are the procedures provided by the workers’ compensation statute (including timely appeal, any allowed late appeal, or other authorized judicial relief), not a second attempt to relitigate original liability through a new claim.

## Conclusion

In *Mark Cerasoli, Employee v. Hale Development, Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Insurer*, the Reviewing Board held that the employee’s failure to appeal a 1993 § 10A conference order denying his original-liability claim made that denial final, and it barred a later claim asserting original liability for the same September 21, 1992 alleged injury, even though the earlier order was a blanket denial without stated reasons.


Mark Cerasoli, Employee, Hale Development, Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Insurer, 13 Mass. Workers’ Comp. Rep. 267 (1999)