Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alexander v. Portland Natural Gas

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided August 7, 2001Published

1Dissent

WATHEN, C.J.,

with whom CLIFFORD, J. and CALKINS, J„ join, dissenting.

[¶ 25] I must respectfully dissent. The Court finds that because Alexander’s relationship with the labor market consisted of a “series of discrete, short-term employments which can best be described as ‘consistently intermittent,’ ” subsection B of 39-A M.R.S.A. § 102(4) may result in an inflated average weekly wage and thus the hearing officer should have applied subsection D. To apply subsection D, however, due regard must be given both to Alexander’s own previous earnings and to “the earnings of other employees of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. St. Pierre v. St. Regis Paper Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
  2. Bossie v. School Administrative District No. 24Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API