Stilson v. Dexter Shoe Co.
This text of 2000 ME 208 (Stilson v. Dexter Shoe Co.) 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.
Opinion
The employer, Dexter Shoe Co., appeals from a decision of a hearing officer of the Workers’ Compensation Board granting the employee’s petition for restoration and awarding 100% partial incapacity benefits based on the combination of a partially incapacitating injury and the unavailability of work within her restrictions. We agree with Dexter that the hearing officer erred in applying 39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 212, 213, 214 (Pamph.2000) to determine Stilson’s entitlement to benefits for a 1988 date of injury. P.L.1991, ch. 885, § A-10; see Tripp v. Philips Elmet Corp., 676 A.2d 927, 928, n. 1 (Me.1996). The applicable provision for Stilson’s date of injury is former 39 M.R.S.A. § 55-B (1989), repealed by P.L.1991, ch. 885, § A-7. Although work was available within the employee’s community, see 39-A M.R.S.A. § 102(6) (Pamph.2000), the hearing officer concluded that her lack of a driver’s license made those jobs unavailable. Because the Court is evenly divided, we affirm the hearing officer’s award of 100% partial incapacity benefits.
The entry is:
Judgment vacated only with respect to the application of 39-A M.R.S.A. § 213, 214 (Pamph.2000). Remanded to the Board for an award of 100% partial incapacity benefits pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 55-B (1989), repealed and replaced by P.L.1991, ch. 885, §§ A-7, A-8. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2000 ME 208, 762 A.2d 936, 2000 Me. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stilson-v-dexter-shoe-co-me-2000.