Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that Maine's Workers' Compensation Act does not authorize reimbursement for purely housekeeping services provided to an injured employee. The court vacated the Appellate Division's decision and remanded for an order denying the claimant's petition for housekeeping expenses.
Holdings
- Section 52 does not authorize reimbursement for purely custodial or housekeeping services.
- The court will not expand section 52 to include housekeeping reimbursement when the statutory language does not fairly encompass that benefit.
Questions Presented
- Whether section 52 of the Maine Workers' Compensation Act authorizes reimbursement for housekeeping services incurred because of a compensable injury.
- Whether the Workers' Compensation Commission may award housekeeping expenses when the statute expressly provides for medical, surgical, hospital, nursing, medicinal, and mechanical or surgical-aid expenses.
Disposition
vacated
Cases Cited (13)
- Prout v. Bluebird Ranch, Inc., 440 A.2d 1047, 1048 (Me. 1982)(followed)
- Lavoie v. International Paper Co., 403 A.2d 1186, 1191 (Me. 1979)(followed)
- State v. Niles, 585 A.2d 181, 182 (Me. 1990)(followed)
- Smyers v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 157 Cal. App. 3d 36, 41-42, 203 Cal. Rptr. 521, 523 (1984)(distinguished)
- CATV Support Serv., Inc. v. Lohr, 509 So. 2d 1189, 1190-1191 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)(distinguished)
- DeLong v. 3015 West Corp., 491 So. 2d 1306, 1307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)(distinguished)
- Walt Disney World Co. v. Harrison, 443 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)(distinguished)
- Quinn v. Archbishop Bergan Mercy Hosp., 232 Neb. 92, 95, 439 N.W.2d 507, 509 (1989)(followed by analogy)
- St. Clair v. County of Grant, 110 N.M. 543, 552, 797 P.2d 993, 1002 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990)(persuasive)
- Ross v. Northern States Power Co., 442 N.W.2d 296, 300 (Minn. 1989)(persuasive)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…