Opinion ID: 1959704
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mary Feeney v. Saco & Biddeford Savings Institution, et al.

Text: In the second consolidated case, the employee, Mary Feeney, broke her wrist after leaving work as a result of a fall on a gravel parking lot, leased to and maintained by her employer, Saco & Biddeford Savings. Feeney filed a petition for award in 1990, seeking closed-end total incapacity benefits. The Commissioner denied her petition in 1991, noting that Feeney failed to explain the cause of her fall. Relying on Comeau, the Commissioner ruled that, although the injury occurred in the course of employment, the employee failed to prove that the injury arose out of the employment. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that, pursuant to the so-called positional risk doctrine, an unexplained fall is compensable when but for the employment, the employee would not have been in the location where the fall occurred. Saco & Biddeford Savings contends that it was error for the Appellate Division to rule that an employee who experiences an unexplained fall in the course of employment is entitled to a presumption that the fall also arose out of the employment. We agree. Such an inference exaggerates the importance of the in the course of requirement and eliminates altogether the arising out of requirement. The arising out of language in section 51(1) is not mere surplusage. See Labbe v. Nissen Corp., 404 A.2d 564, 567 (Me.1979) (statutes are not construed to contain surplusage or superfluous language). As we noted in Comeau, the purpose of the Act is to compensate employees for injuries that occur  while and because they were at work. 449 A.2d at 366 (citations omitted). Feeney must therefore bear the burden of proving both elements of the work-causation test. While the failure to provide an explanation for an injury will not automatically preclude the employee from meeting her burden of proof, the Commissioner did not err in concluding that Feeney failed to meet her burden pursuant to the multi-factored Comeau analysis. As we noted in Comeau, the Board need not reach the correct conclusion, but a conclusion that is `neither arbitrary nor without rational foundation.' Comeau, 449 A.2d at 368 (quoting Hall v. State, 441 A.2d 1019, 1921 (Me.1982)). The entry is: Decision in Morse v. Laverdiere's Super Drug Store affirmed. The decision of the Appellate Division in Feeney v. Saco & Biddeford Savings Institution is vacated. Remanded to the Workers' Compensation Board with instructions to affirm the decision of the former Workers' Compensation Commission. All concurring.