Board of Registration in Med., 401 Mass. 172, 183 (1987). Cf. Berrios v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 411 Mass. 587, 595 (1992) (“regulations are . . . void [if] their provisions cannot by any reasonable construction be interpreted in harmony with the legislative mandate” [emphasis added]). However, as applied by the board in the circumstances of this case, the regulation provides benefits that exceed those intended by the statutory scheme and authorized by § 35C. Insofar as the regulation is in conflict with the terms of the statute, it is invalid. Beth Israel Hosp. Ass’n v. Board of Registration in Med., supra at 182-183. See G. L. c. 152, § 5 (“commissioner shall promulgate . . . regulations consistent with this chapter”). Cf. Corriveau v. Home Ins. Co., 43 Mass. App. Ct. 924 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Neither the “beneficent design” of workers’
holding unenforceable a regulation that would have provided greater workers compensation benefits than permitted by statute holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments holding that in absence of statute prohibiting recovery claimant may receive workers compensation and unemployment benefits simultaneously holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act holding that carrier was entitled to intervene as of right where the states workers compensation law permitted subrogation of a compensation carrier