Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 64-A

When employee killed or unable to testify

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1965, c. 408, §7 (NEW). PL 1973, c. 788, §229 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 885, §A7 (RP). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1972–2015 · leading case: Hall v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hall v. State (1982) me · cites it 6× “The Commissioner also found that the presumption established by 39 M.R.S.A. § 64-A (1978) was "fully dispelled" by the evidence.”
Metcalf v. Marine Colloids, Inc. (1972) me · cites it 6× “Metcalf to have been on top of the bales, the negative evidence which exists in this case would have been insufficient to meet the requisites of such ultimate burden of proof.”
City of Sherwood v. Lowe (1982) arkctapp “16 39 M.R.S.A. § 64-A provides: In any claim for compensation, where the employee has been killed, or is physically or mentally unable to testify, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the employee received a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of…”
Wescott v. S. D. Warren Division of Scott Paper Co. (1982) me · cites it 2× “After the Commissioner issued his initial decree awarding compensation, the claimant asked the Commissioner to find that the presumptions afforded by 39 M.R.S.A. § 64-A (1978) were applicable.”
Nichols v. Cantara & Sons (1995) me “Because the employer is typically not a party to the third-party settlement and has no control of or access to evidence of personal damages related to that claim, common sense militates against placing the burden on the employer to prove that no portion of a third-party…”
Estate of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army (2015) me “The statute at issue in Toomey was 39 M.R.S.A. § 64-A(1978), which provided: “In any claim for compensation, where the employee has been killed, or is physically or mentally unable to testify, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the employee received a personal injury…”
Toomey v. City of Portland (1978) me “First, the City contends that even though the employee here involved was killed as a result of the automobile collision on which the claim for compensation is based, the widow did not have the benefit of the presumption set forth in 39 M.R.S.A. § 64-A. 3 The reason for this,…”
Fernald v. Dexter Shoe Co. (1996) me “Because the employer generally has better access to records regarding work hours and lost time, it is reasonable that an employer contending that a calculation of the average weekly wage must be made pursuant to subsection 2(2)(B) should bear the burden of showing that the…”
Sargent v. Raymond F. Sargent, Inc. (1972) me “Additionally, the Petitioner, being Raymond’s widow, is entitled to the benefits of 39 M.R.S.A. § 64-A, which provides: “In any claim for compensation, where the employee has been killed, or is physically or mentally unable to testify, there shall be a rebuttable presumption…”
Freeman v. Co-Hen Egg Co. (1981) me “” 39 M.R.S.A. § 64-A (1978). Competent evidence supports the Commissioner’s finding that the employee died as a result of an injury arising out of his employment.”
Weeks v. State (1978) me “Assessing the meaning of the single sentence here at issue by reading it as part of a total context which includes the above findings of fact made by the Commissioner in light of all of the evidence, we must conclude that appellant is wrong in claiming that the Commissioner…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 64-A(1978) — 1 case
Estate of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army (2015) me “The statute at issue in Toomey was 39 M.R.S.A. § 64-A(1978), which provided: “In any claim for compensation, where the employee has been killed, or is physically or mentally unable to testify, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the employee received a personal injury…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.