“[t]he Legislature . . . has . . . nullified the Ferriter decision by preventing recovery for loss of consortium by spouses or children of employees subject to the *492 provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, [Mass. Gen. Laws] c. 152, § 24, as amended through St. 1985, c. 527, § 35”
How later courts described this case
- “[t]he Legislature . . . has . . . nullified the Ferriter decision by preventing recovery for loss of consortium by spouses or children of employees subject to the *492 provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, [Mass. Gen. Laws] c. 152, § 24, as amended through St. 1985, c. 527, § 35”
- Industrial Accident Board considered court of competent jurisdiction for collateral estoppel purposes concerning Workers’ Compensation claim
- wife could not claim loss of consortium based on husband’s injury where Industrial Accident Board found husband had not sustained injury
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wilkins, J.
(concurring). In Ferriter v. Daniel O’Connell’s Sons, 381 Mass. 507, 543 (1980) (Wilkins, J., dissenting), I disagreed with the view that a spouse of an injured worker had a common law claim against the employer for loss of consortium. The Legislature has since overruled the Ferriter decision on this point. See G. L. c. 152, § 24, as appearing in St. 1985, c. 572, § 35. Although (in order to achieve equal treatment) I accept the Ferriter rule for all persons as to events occurring before its legislative abrogation, I do not accept a Ferriter-like rule as to a spouse of *482 a worker who, it has previously been determined, did not have a compensable claim. I need not worry about issue preclusion. The spouse simply has no common law claim.