Court Opinion

ID: 9703790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:07:52.71467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:03.536310
License: Public Domain

WATHEN, Justice,
concurring separately.
Although I agree with the result reached by the Court, I disagree with the Court’s analysis. The Commissioner found that the employee’s impairment resulted from both the 1980 and 1982 injury and ordered apportionment. In my judgment that finding precludes the “natural inference” drawn by the Court that the employee’s visits to BIW’s health department were necessitated solely by the 1982 injury. I would address the issue presented by this case and hold that treatment received at an employer’s first aid station does not toll the statute of limitations because it is not a “payment for benefits” within the meaning of 39 M.R.S.A. § 95.