Legal Opinion

Webster v. Bath Iron Works

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided October 2, 1998Published

1Opinion of the Court

RUDMAN, Justice.

[¶ 1] Bath Iron Works [“BIW”] petitions from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board granting Carl Webster’s motion for attorney’s fees. The issue is whether attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A § 110(2) (1989), repealed by P.L. 1991, ch. 885, § A-7, must be offset by the amount of attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act [“LHWCA”], 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 (1994), for duplicative work. See Parker v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 644 A.2d 1037, 1039-10 (Me.1994). Because we agree with BIW that Webster’s counsel is not…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bouford v. Bath Iron Works Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1986
  2. Stockford v. Bath Iron Works Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1984
  3. LaPointe v. United Engineers & ConstructorsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
  4. Parker v. Bath Iron Works Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
  5. Fernald v. Dexter Shoe Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996

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