Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 35B (2026)

Return to work; subsequent injury; rate of compensation

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 35B. An employee who has been receiving compensation under this chapter and who has returned to work for a period of not less than two months shall, if he is subsequently injured and receives compensation, be paid such compensation at the rate in effect at the time of the subsequent injury whether or not such subsequent injury is determined to be a recurrence of the former injury; provided, that if compensation for the old injury was paid in a lump sum, he shall not receive compensation unless the subsequent claim is determined to be a new injury.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1981–2012 · leading case: Taylor's Case, 691 N.E.2d 997 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Taylor's Case, 691 N.E.2d 997 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 3× “The defendant insurer appeals a decision of the reviewing board (board) of the Department of Industrial Accidents that permitted Joseph Taylor, the employee, to elect to avoid the operation of G. L. c. 152, § 35B, in order to receive benefits at the rate in effect at the time of…”

Wadsworth's Case, 963 N.E.2d 1181 (Mass. 2012). · cites it 2× “In addition, he claimed under G. L. c. 152, § 35B, that he was entitled to receive compensation at the rate in effect on July 1, 2003, because he was permanently disabled from a subsequent injury that was a recurrence of his 1980 injury after having returned to work for a period…”

Zerofski's Case, 433 N.E.2d 869 (Mass. 1982). “In support, he cites G. L. c. 152, § 35B, which provides that when an employee has been compensated once, and suffers a “subsequent injury,” compensation should be based on rates in effect at the time of the subsequent injury, “whether or not [it is a] recurrence of the former…”

Dufresne's Case, 743 N.E.2d 850 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). “application of G. L. c. 152, § 35B (described below), as well as its entitlement to the Hunter offset.”

Don Francisco's Case, 440 N.E.2d 525 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). “” The board *457 ordered that the employee receive benefits at the rate in effect on May 8, 1978, in accordance with G. L. c. 152, § 35B, inserted by St. 1970, c.”

Zerofski's Case, 421 N.E.2d 1266 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “5 While the employee claims (and the insurer concedes) that he requested the judge to apply the provisions of § 35B and that the judge’s failure to do so was the reason for his appeal, there is nothing in the record before us which supports that claim.”

Mugford's Case, 701 N.E.2d 654 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). “495, 500-501 (1998) (there is no discretion to decline to apply G. L. c. 152, § 35B, even if it results in lower benefits).”

Wadsworth's Case, 935 N.E.2d 333 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “The second was a heightened level of compensation granted to a worker who had returned to employment after a disabling injury but who then suffered a disabling recurrence of the injury; G. L. c. 152, § 35B (§ 35B), entitles such a worker to compensation upon the basis of his…”

Czarniak's Case, 440 N.E.2d 531 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). “The employee appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court reversing the decision of the reviewing board of the Industrial Accident Board awarding him compensation benefits in accordance with G. L. c. 152, § 35B. The reviewing board (board) affirmed and adopted the decision of a…”

Camara's Case, 878 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). “Under G. L. c. 152, § 35B, 1 when an employee suffers a recurrence of an earlier injury after returning to work, the employee is entitled to be paid compensation at the average weekly wage rate in effect at the time of the subsequent injury.”

Calheta's Case, 440 N.E.2d 529 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). “Upon the employee’s appeal from the decision of the reviewing board of the Industrial Accident Board denying him compensation at the higher rate provided by G. L. c. 152, § 35B, the trial judge ruled in favor of the employee.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.