Civil Proceedings - John Tobin and the Department of Industrial Assignment

Civil Proceedings - John Tobin and the Department of Industrial Accidents - Assignment Example The plaintiff seeks that his case should be remanded to a lower judge so that more evidence can be gathered related to the statute 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) (CASE). John 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. 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. The orders of the reviewing board were affirmed so they won this case. The Appeals Court rejected the employees argue that the General Laws c. 152, Â § 35 are in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Declaration of the Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution.