Legal Opinion

Loud v. Kezar Falls Woolen Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 27, 1999PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWathen, C.J.

[¶ 1] The employer, Kezar Falls Woolen Co., appeals from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board partially granting its petition for forfeiture. The Board concluded that although the employee’s refusal of an offer of reinstatement employment resulted in a forfeiture of benefits, the employee’s subsequent inquiries into job opportunities, and further layoffs at Kezar Falls, ended “the period of the refusal” pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 214(1)(A) (Supp.1998). We disagree and vacate the decision.

[¶ 2] The employee, Denise Loud, suffered a work-related injury to her low-back on August 1,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Riley v. Bath Iron Works Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
  2. Bureau v. Staffing Network, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
  3. Tompkins v. Wade & Searway Construction Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1992
  4. Derr v. Murphy Motor Freight LinesMichigan Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Demello v. Department of Environmental ProtectionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1992

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bernier v. Data General Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2002
  2. Hincks v. Robert Mitchell Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1999
  3. Maine Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. FolsomSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001
  4. Morrissette v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2003
  5. Holt v. School Administrative District No. 6Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API