 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
SMITH v. MARKET SQUARE HEALTH CARE12/31/1997
[ 1] April Smith appeals from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board granting her petition for restoration, but denying continuing benefits based on the Board's application of 39-A M.R.S.A. § 214 (Supp. 1997). Pursuant to that section, the Board found that Smith refused a bona fide offer of reasonable reinstatement work without good and reasonable cause. She contends that because her current incapacity is due, in part, to a 1991 work-related injury, the Board should have limited the application of section 214 to that portion of her incapacity attributable to her post-1993 injury. She further contends that the Board erred in its factual finding that she refused an offer of reasonable work without good and reasonable cause pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 214. Because the order granting appellate review limits this appeal to the issue of whether Section 214 of 39-A M.R.S.A. is the law to be applied, we address only that issue, and we are unpersuaded that the Board applied the wrong law. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Board.
[ 2] Smith suffered a work-related injury to her right wrist, shoulder and arm on January 28, 1991 while employed as a CNA at Market Square Health Center. She suffered a second aggravation injury to the same body parts on September 23, 1993. She underwent surgery in 1994 and then returned to light-duty employment. In 1994 she resigned from her employment at Market Square and relocated with her family to another part of the state. Smith filed a petition for restoration related to her 1991 injury, and a petition for award related to her 1993 injury. Concluding that her current incapacity is causally related to both dates of injury, the Board granted the petitions and awarded short-term benefits. The Board also concluded, however, that Smith's resignation from Market Square in 1994 constituted a refusal of a bona fide offer of reasonable employment without good and reasonable cause pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 214(1), and, therefore, denied continuing wage-loss benefits.
[ 3] Pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (Supp. 1996), Smith filed a petition for appellate review with this Court. In her petition she raised several issues. In our order granting the petition for appellate review, however, we stated that the petition was granted "as to the second issue [raised in Smith's petition]. That issue is whether the Board denied benefits based on the employee's refusal of an offer of reasonable work
[ 4] On appeal, Smith challenges the Board's application of section 214. In addition, however, she attempts to raise those issues that were expressly excluded from consideration by our order granting appellate review. Our review of
[ 5] Accordingly, we limit our consideration to whether it was error for the Board to apply subsection 214(1) to that portion of Smith's incapacity that relates to a pre-1993 injury. The implementing section of the
The entry is:
Decision of the
Page 1 Maine Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|