Stilson v. Dexter Shoe Co.

Stilson v. Dexter Shoe Co.

Back to the Opinions page

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT					Reporter of Decisions
Decision:	2000 ME 208
Docket:	WCB-99-717
Argued:	October 3, 2000
Decided:	December 5, 2000

Panel:WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, DANA, SAUFLEY, ALEXANDER, and CALKINS, JJ.

JOYCE STILSON

 v. 

DEXTER SHOE COMPANY

and 

SEDGWICK JAMES INSURANCE COMPANY



PER CURIAM

	The employer, Dexter Shoe Co., appeals from a decision of a hearing
officer of the Workers' Compensation Board granting the employee's
petition for restoration and awarding 100% partial incapacity benefits based
on the combination of a partially incapacitating injury and the unavailability
of work within her restrictions.  We agree with Dexter that the hearing
officer erred in applying 39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 212, 213, 214 (Pamph. 2000) to
determine Stilson's entitlement to benefits for a 1988 date of injury. 
P.L. 1991, ch. 885, § A-10; see Tripp v. Philips Elmet Corp., 676 A.2d 927,
928, n.1 (Me. 1996).  The applicable provision for Stilson's date of injury is
former 39 M.R.S.A. § 55-B (1989), repealed by P.L. 1991, ch. 885, § A-7. 
Although work was available within the employee's community, see 39-A
M.R.S.A. § 102(6) (Pamph. 2000), the hearing officer concluded that her
lack of a driver's license made those jobs unavailable.  Because the Court is
evenly divided, we affirm the hearing officer's award of 100% partial
incapacity benefits.
	The entry is:
Judgment vacated only with respect to the
application of 39-A M.R.S.A. § 213, 214
(Pamph. 2000).  Remanded to the Board for an
award of 100% partial incapacity benefits
pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 55-B (1989),
repealed and replaced by P.L. 1991, ch. 885,
§§ A-7, A-8.  In all other respects, the
judgment is affirmed.
Attorney for employee:

Kevin M. Noonan, Esq., (orally)
McTeague higbee Case Cohen Whitney & Toker, P.A.
P O Box 5000
Topsham, ME 04086-5000

Attorney for employer:

Anne-Marie Storey Hamer, Esq., (orally)
Rudman & Winchell, LLC
P O Box 1401
Bangor, ME 04402-1401