Cote v. Allied Chemical Coatings, Inc.
Decision Date | 16 January 1969 |
Parties | Leo J. COTE v. ALLIED CHEMICAL COATINGS, INC. and American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Ronald E. Ayotte, Biddeford, for plaintiff.
Lawrence P. Mahoney, Portland, for defendant.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, MARDEN, DUFRESNE, and WEATHERBEE, JJ.
Appellant employee appeals from a pro forma decree of the Superior Court affirming a decision of the Industrial Accident Commission dismissing appellant's petition for compensation. The appellant relies upon the following points on appeal.
The statement in question was one taken by an insurance adjuster from petitioner but later retained by petitioner and not delivered to the adjuster. The adjuster was not a witness in the case. The document was a mere self serving declaration. It was not made admissible under the rule discussed in State of Maine v. Galloway (Me.1968) 247 A.2d 104 (Opinion October 31, 1968). No sound reason was advanced for its admission into evidence and it was properly excluded. Moreover, in the face of the ruling the exhibit was withdrawn.
The petitioner started to describe a conversation with a Mr. Lee. When he was about to relate statements made by Mr. Lee to him, he was interrupted by the objection of defendant's counsel and the evidence was excluded. At this stage there was no evidence as to who Mr. Lee was or how a conversation with him might be material.
On another occasion petitioner's counsel objected to proper questions asked in cross-examination. The answer elicited was innocuous. The point is frivolous and requires no discussion. No error is shown.
It was incumbent upon the petitioner to satisfy the Commissioner by credible evidence that he received a 'personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.' 39 M.R.S.A. Sec. 51. Petitioner's claim of injury was uncorroborated. It is apparent that his testimony did not persuade the Commissioner and in fact was disbelieved. The Commissioner was not satisfied that there was any 'unusual event' or any 'casual connection between what he said occurred * * * and the symptoms that he suffered, according to his story, subsequent thereto.' Minor and insignificant variations between the Commissioner's lengthy review of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Guerrette v. Fraser Paper, Ltd.
...were in favor of or against the petitioner. See Bolduc v. Pioneer Plastice Corporation, 302 A.2d 577 (Me.1973); Cote v. Allied Chemical Coatings, Inc., 249 A.2d 528 (Me.1969). We view the legislative purpose in amending the predecessor to 39 M.R.S.A. § 99 as a desire to eliminate dismissal ......
- State v. Pinnette
-
Willette v. Statler Tissue Corp.
...if there is competent evidence on which to base the decision in the case, cannot be disturbed by this Court. Cote v. Allied Chemical Coatings, Inc., 1969, Me., 249 A.2d 528. See also, Baker's Case, 1947, 143 Me. 103, 55 A.2d 780; Robitaille's Case, 1943, 140 Me. 121, 34 A.2d 473; McCarthy's......
-
Rowe v. Bath Iron Works Corp.
...of his claim is itself a factual question. Willette v. Statler Tissue Corp., Me., 331 A.2d 365, 370 (1975); Cote v. Allied Chemical Coatings, Inc., Me., 249 A.2d 528, 530 (1969). When the Law Court is asked to review a decree of the Workers' Compensation Commission for sufficiency of the ev......