Legal Opinion

Saucier v. Portland

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided September 18, 2007PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMead, J.

[¶ 1] Nichols Portland appeals from a decision of a Workers’ Compensation Board hearing officer (Sprague, HO) granting Thelma Saucier’s petition for restoration, and awarding her 800 weeks of benefits pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 212(2)(G) (2006) for the permanent and total loss of industrial use of both hands. Nichols contends inter alia that Saucier is not entitled to these benefits because she failed to rebut the statutory presumption that she suffers no earnings incapacity from the work injury because she is retired. See 39-A M.R.S. § 223 (2006). We *1180agree, and vacate the hearing officer’s…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1994
  2. Scott M Cain v. Waste Management IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Redfern v. Sparks-Withington Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Cain v. Waste Management, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Costales v. S.D. Warren Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2003

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hedges v. PitcherSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2008
  2. Mitton v. VerizonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2012
  3. Downing v. Department of TransportationSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2012
  4. R.S. v. S.D. & M.S. v. G.L.S. v. S.D.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API