Legal Opinion

Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided December 20, 1994PublishedCited by 76 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GLASSMAN, Justice.

The employer, Sears, Roebuck & Company, appeals from a decision of the Appellate Division affirming the denial by the Workers’ Compensation Commission of the employer’s petition for coordination of benefits. The Commission held that, pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 62-B (1989), 1 an employer is not entitled to a coordination of compensation benefits when an employee rolls pension benefits over into an individual retirement- account (IRA) until those funds are distributed from the IRA. We affirm the decision.

The record reflects the following undisputed facts: the employee, Kenneth…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Riley v. Bath Iron Works Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
  2. Nielsen v. Burnham & Morrill, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1991
  3. Davis v. Scott Paper Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1986
  4. Estate of Stone v. HansonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1993
  5. Marchand v. Eastern Welding Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994

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

3Cited by76 opinions

  1. Bureau v. Staffing Network, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
  2. Thibeault v. LarsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1995
  3. Dumond v. Aroostook Van LinesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
  4. Guaranty Fund Management Services v. Workers' Compensation BoardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
  5. Pelletier v. Fort Kent Golf ClubSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1995

71 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