Legal Opinion

Malcolm v. Bath Iron Works Corp.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided April 28, 1980PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GODFREY, Justice.

Warren Malcolm appeals from a pro for-ma decree dismissing his petition for workers’ compensation. The commissioner dismissed the petition on the ground that Malcolm did not notify his employer, Bath Iron Works (BIW), that he had been injured within thirty days of the injury as required by 39 M.R.S.A. § 63 (1978). 1 We deny the appeal.

The commissioner made only the following findings in his decision:

It is found that there was no notice given in this case in accordance with pro visions of the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act.

It is specifically found that Warren E. Malcolm and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pino v. Maplewood Packing Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1977
  2. Williams v. International Lubricant Corp.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1977
  3. Girlish v. Acme Precision Products, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1978

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hird v. Bath Iron Works Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1986
  2. Upham v. Van Baalen Pacific Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
  3. Jensen v. S.D. Warren Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API