Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 44 (2026)

Inaccuracies in, and want of, notice

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 44. Such notice shall not be held invalid or insufficient by reason of any inaccuracy in stating the time, place or cause of the injury unless it is shown that it was the intention to mislead and that the insurer was in fact misled thereby. Want of notice shall not bar proceedings, if it be shown that the insurer, insured or agent had knowledge of the injury, or if it is found that the insurer was not prejudiced by such want of notice.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases, 1922–2016 · leading case: Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania v. Great N. Ins. Co., 45 N.E.3d 1283 (Mass. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania v. Great N. Ins. Co., 45 N.E.3d 1283 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 2× “The employee is barred from receiving workers’ compensation benefits under G. L. c. 152, § 44, only if the insurer, the insured (i.”

McCracken v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 744 N.E.2d 102 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). “152, §§ 44 & 49. Our conclusion that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over McCracken’s claim for benefits under § 18 makes it unnecessary for us to consider Sears’ additional argument that, because McCracken’s arm was disfigured rather than amputated, the third Superior…”

Swasey's Case, 395 N.E.2d 884 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “G. L. c. 152, § 44. 4 Perrotta’s Case, 318 Mass.”

Pena's Case, 363 N.E.2d 1333 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). “The board’s conclusion is adequately supported by the testimony of the employee and the employee’s doctor, Ronald F.”

Herson's Case, 169 N.E.2d 865 (Mass. 1960). “2 There is also no precise finding that in 1954 the employer had knowledge (see G. L. c. 152, § 44) that an alleged injury seemingly brought on by exertion had taken place as distinguished (see Kangas’s Case, 282 Mass.”

Fennell's Case, 193 N.E. 885 (Mass. 1935). “G. L. c. 152, § 44. Indeed, the several payments all appear to have been made within six months after the occurrence of the accident.”

Mahoney's Case, 150 N.E.2d 729 (Mass. 1958). “” See G. L. c. 152, § 44. Dr. Hajjar knew of the deceased’s chest condition and advised him to quit work on account of his “bad chest.”

Ogonowsky's Case, 155 N.E.2d 787 (Mass. 1959). “There was evidence that the employee was treated by the company nurse immediately after the accident; that he wore, for some time, the scarf or sling which she provided, and was treated at the clinic daily in that period; that he was seen by the company physician, for the…”

Therrien's Case, 307 N.E.2d 586 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974). “See G. L. c. 152, § 44. (1) From an examination of the entire record it is our opinion that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the board’s affirmation and adoption (“upon consideration of all the evidence”) of the finding of the single member that the employee’s death was…”

Dorney's Case, 156 N.E. 718 (Mass. 1927). · cites it 2× “Although none of these witnesses testified to a direct assertion by Dorney that on or about January 13 he had driven a splinter or stiver into his finger while cleaning a last bin, and that his sufferings were caused thereby, there is enough • here, taken with Dorney’s…”

Donnelly's Case, 243 Mass. 371 (Mass. 1923). “G. L. c. 152, §§ 44, 49. Bergeron’s Case, ante, 366.”

Bergeron's Case, 243 Mass. 366 (Mass. 1923). “” See now G. L. c. 152, § 44. Barry’s Case, 240 Mass.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

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.