Roy v. Bath Iron Works

GORMAN, J.,

with whom SAUFLEY, C.J., and MEAD, J., join, dissenting.

[¶ 33] I agree with the majority that 39-A M.R.S. § 201(5) (2007), in and of itself, does not require the reduction or elimination of Joseph A. Roy’s workers’ compensation benefits. However, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Roy remains entitled to receive ongoing incapacity benefits. Having filed a petition for review, Roy had the burden of establishing continued entitlement to benefits generally. In my view, from the point that Roy became totally incapacitated for reasons having no connection with his work…