Hayward v. State Department of Audit

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Hayward v. State Department of Audit

430 A.2d 1111, 1981 Me. LEXIS 835

DecidedJune 18, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 430 A.2d 1111 (Hayward v. State Department of Audit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayward v. State Department of Audit, 430 A.2d 1111, 1981 Me. LEXIS 835 (Me. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Harold Dale Hayward appeals from the pro forma decree dismissing his petition for award of compensation on grounds of lack of notice. 39 M.R.S.A. § 63. Hayward contends on appeal that the evidence establishes that his employer, Department of Audit, “had knowledge of the injury” so as to excuse the failure to give notice. 39 M.R.S.A. § 64. The Commissioner was warranted in finding that, although the employer was aware that Hayward wore a Thomas collar, it “was aware of neither the cause nor the extent of the alleged injury.” Knowledge by the employer of an injury is insufficient without knowledge that the injury is, or may be, work related. Murray v. T.W. Dick Co., Inc., Me., 398 A.2d 390, 391-92 (1979). That Hayward claims that his own testimony would support a different conclusion is of no consequence on appeal. Dunton v. Eastern Fine Paper Co., Me., 423 A.2d 512, 518 (1980).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that the employer pay to the employee an allowance of $300.00 for his counsel fees plus his reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for this appeal.

All concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Harold Dale Hayward appeals from the pro forma decree dismissing his petition for award of compensation on grounds of lack of notice. 39 M.R.S.A. § 63. Hayward contends on appeal that the evidence establishes that his employer, Department of Audit, “had knowledge of the injury” so as to excuse the failure to give notice. 39 M.R.S.A. § 64. The Commissioner was warranted in finding that, although the employer was aware that Hayward wore a Thomas collar, it “was aware of neither the cause nor the extent of the alleged injury.” Knowledge by the employer of an injury is insufficient without knowledge that the injury is, or may be, work related. Murray v. T.W. Dick Co., Inc., Me., 398 A.2d 390, 391-92 (1979). That Hayward claims that his own testimony would support a different conclusion is of no consequence on appeal. Dunton v. Eastern Fine Paper Co., Me., 423 A.2d 512, 518 (1980).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that the employer pay to the employee an allowance of $300.00 for his counsel fees plus his reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for this appeal.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

430 A.2d 1111, 1981 Me. LEXIS 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayward-v-state-department-of-audit-me-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack