Posted On: September 18, 2007, 7:06 am CDT

Posted By: JGD

If the article has all the info, then it seems to me the ruling was correct. It says he hurt his back at work. For a short time he was unable to work at all, then he was allowed light duty. However,the company said no lt duty was available--which I doubt, but that's what they said. I don't know Mass law, but in NY, if WC says you are eligible for lt duty, they reduce your wage benefit whether or not you actually work lt duty. Had he not been injured, he wouldn't need lt duty, so that is directly related to the injury. Then they fired him. The article says he was hurt 11/7 & terminated 12/4. I don't know why his job wasn't protected for 12 wks, but they don't give any other reason for termination other than that he couldn't work. In any case--it is "depressing" to be in pain & it is depressing to be told you can't work and support your family in the way you are accustomed. Then, add on to that a possible reduction in benefits, and finally you get terminated--all that adds up to a real reason for depression. He wouldn't even be eligible for unemployment if he was not able to look for a job due to his injury. No where does it say he was depressed or being treated for depression prior to the injury. I know these articles don't have every detail, but if this was the order of events, it seems the depression started with the injury and the intervening events--the refusal of lt duty and termination--would not have occurred had he not been injured.