Legal Opinion

Thibodeau v. Etscovitz Chevrolet

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided November 15, 1976PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POMEROY, Justice.

39 M.R.S.A. § 65 1 was invoked by this employer-appellant to effect a forfeiture of an injured employee’s compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 39 M. R.S.A. § 1 rf seq.

After a decision by the Industrial Accident Commissioner adverse to the employer, an appeal was taken to the Superior Court. This appeal is before us from a pro forma decree of the Superior Court sustaining the decision of the Commissioner.

We deny the appeal.

That appellee-employee received a com-pensable injury while in appellant’s employment is not in question. The injury involved a torn cartilage…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Jacobsky v. C. D'Alfonso & Sons, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976
  2. Willette v. Statler Tissue Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1975
  3. Gordon v. Maine Reduction Company, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Michaud v. SteckinoSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
  2. Fluor Alaska, Inc. v. MendozaAlaska Supreme Court · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API