Retirement – Accidental disability – Preexisting condition

Listen to this article

Where the Massachusetts Port Authority Employees’ Retirement Board denied an accidental disability application, the application should have been allowed because a workplace accident aggravated a preexisting condition to the point of disability.

Reversed.

“The Board first argues that it is not even clear the Petitioner is disabled, i.e. unable to perform his work duties. It relies on Dr. [Vivek] Shah who did not evaluate the Petitioner himself. However, the medical panelists as well as the Petitioner’s doctor unanimously opined that he is disabled. Their conclusions are consistent with the evidence, which include the Petitioner’s job duties, medical records and testimony. Thus, there is every reason to credit the doctors who examined him over the Board’s doctor who did not. …

“The Board’s next argument is based on a view of the facts with which I disagree. It argues that the only problem the Petitioner had after his 2020 injury was his bicep. Subsequent surgery ‘fixed’ that problem leaving no further fallout from that injury. Therefore, if he was able to perform his duties before the accident, he should still be able to perform his duties after. On the other hand, if he is unable to work, then it must be because of something other than the effects of the 2020 accident. The Board appears to be advancing the arguments in Dr. Shah’s opinion.

“The problem with both the Board’s argument, and Dr. Shah’s opinion, is that it wrongly characterizes the extent of the 2020 injury. True, the 2020 injury did injure the Petitioner’s bicep, and the surgery seems to have repaired that almost completely. But while the accident injured his bicep, it also aggravated his pre-existing shoulder injuries. In the months between his accident and surgery, he repeatedly saw his doctor complaining of shoulder pain and difficulty performing various physical tasks. His inability to work was directly related to those problems and did not disappear when his bicep was repaired. That is, the surgery did not return him to where he was prior to the accident because the accident also affected his shoulders, which the surgery did not fix. The Board, and Dr. Shah, ignore and/or fail to acknowledge the accident’s impact on the Petitioner’s shoulders.

“In contrast, the Petitioner’s doctors and medical panelists all acknowledge this. …

“More importantly, the three medical panelists had the benefit of evaluating the Petitioner after his surgery. They were all aware that the 2020 accident damaged the Petitioner’s bicep and his subsequent surgery treated that. But they all very clearly opined that the 2020 accident simultaneously aggravated his shoulder problems, which did not disappear with the surgery, and that was the basis for their opinions. His inability to perform his job duties related to his inability to lift and reach overhead, which is a problem associated with shoulders, not biceps. Since he was able to do those things at work before, but not after, the accident, the accident must have been the cause of his disability. … Again, their views are consistent with the evidence, which include the Petitioner’s job duties, medical records and testimony. …

“The Board’s decision denying the Petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement is reversed.”

Serra v. Massport Employees’ Retirement Board (Lawyers Weekly No. 27-117-25) (10 pages) (Tennen, Administrative Magistrate) (Division of Administrative Law Appeals) Robert Noa for the petitioner; Richard Heidlage for the respondent (Docket No. CR-24-0144) (Aug. 29, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.