Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Tucker v. ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF MAINE, INC.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided November 6, 2008No. Docket: WCB-08-41Published

1ConcurrenceSilver, J., joined by Levy, J.,

[¶ 21] I concur in part B of the opinion, which addresses partial benefits and post-injury earning capacity, but I would vacate on other grounds and would remand for further fact-finding. I agree that Tucker, in order to qualify for 100% partial benefits, must demonstrate that he conducted an adequate search for full-time work because he has full-time, light duty earning capacity. The hearing officer made no findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding Tucker’s search for full-time work in late 2005 and early 2006. I would remand for further fact-finding on this issue.

[¶ 22] An employee…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ibbitson v. Sheridan Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
  2. Grubb v. S.D. Warren Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2003
  3. Maietta v. Town of ScarboroughSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2004
  4. Monaghan v. Jordan's MeatsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2007
  5. Avramovic v. R.C. Moore Transportation, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API