Cousins v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1991
• Docket Number: GEORGIA-PACIFIC
• Citation: 599 A.2d 73
• Parties: Robert COUSINS v.CORPORATION.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 73

599 A.2d 73

Robert COUSINS v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Sept. 3, 1991.

Decided Nov. 8, 1991.

Paul H. Sighinolfi (orally), Jane E. Skelton, Rudman & Winchell, Bangor, for plaintiff.

Kevin M. Cuddy (orally), Cuddy & Lanham, Bangor, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, and COLLINS, JJ.

ROBERTS, Justice.

Georgia-Pacific Corporation appeals from a decision of the appellate division affirming the restoration of compensation to Robert Cousins by the Workers' Compensation Commission. Georgia-Pacific contends that the termination of Cousins's employment for fault precludes a finding of causal connection between his original work injury and his current earning capacity. Because we reject that contention, we affirm the Appellate Division's decision.

I.

On February 7, 1984, Robert Cousins sustained a severe injury to his left hand and arm while working at Georgia-Pacific Corporation. His hand was pulled into a paper machine causing him to lose his three middle fingers and injure his wrist, arm and shoulder. Following surgery he was left with two fingers in the position of the thumb and small finger on his left hand, severely limiting his ability to grasp.

In February 1985, Cousins returned to a light-duty position at Georgia-Pacific. After returning to work Cousins received workers' compensation benefits at varying rates. On June 9, 1986, Cousins called the mill and reported that he was having problems with his arm and would not be in to work. On that day Cousins participated in a golf tournament. After learning about the golf outing, Georgia-Pacific terminated Cousins for "dishonesty," a violation of the union contract. Thereafter Georgia-Pacific discontinued Cousins's workers' compensation payments.

Cousins filed a petition for restoration of compensation based on his injury and its effect on his earning capacity. Cousins sought compensation benefits for the period after his termination. The Commission granted partial incapacity benefits at a rate of 35% from April 1989, ¹ to the present and continuing, recognizing the difference between his pre-injury earnings and his post-Georgia-Pacific earnings. The Commission found that Cousins should not be barred from receiving benefits because of his "fault" in the termination. The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing with the Commission regarding Cousins's partial incapacity benefits and stating that "[t]he fact that the employee was unable to work at Georgia-Pacific due to the violation of the contract is not determinative of the issue regarding the employee's level of incapacity.... The employee's alleged dishonesty, while playing a role in the arbitration process involving the contractual violation, should not preclude a finding of earning incapacity when it has been shown that the employee's incapacity remains causally related to his work-related injury."

II.

There is no dispute that at the termination of his employment Cousins still had a degree of physical disability that prevented his return to his original work assignment. Georgia-Pacific argues that, but for his malfeasance, Cousins would still be earning at his pre-injury rate. As a result, Georgia-Pacific says, he cannot attribute his present diminished earning...