Joyce v. Conary
| Decision Date | 03 April 1974 |
| Parties | Norman JOYCE v. L. Clyde CONARY and Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company. Edward HASKELL v. L. Clyde CONARY and Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Morris D. Rubin, George W. Kurr, Jr., Bangor, for plaintiff.
Rudman, Rudman & Carter by Gene Carter, Richard J. Relyea, III, Bangor, for defendant.
Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD and DELAHANTY, JJ.
On September 2, 1970 appellees Joyce and Haskell filed petitions for compensation (dated August 26, 1970) with the Industrial Accident Commission. Each alleged that on August 25, 1967 he had received personal and compensable injuries while working for L. Clyde Conary as a 'fisherman'. Each man asserted that they were together in a boat just leaving a dock when the boat's motor caught fire and exploded. Each was burned and seeks relief under our workmen's compensation system.
The employer Conary and insurance carrier, appellants here, both filed answers on October 22, 1970 (dated October 21, 1970) setting forth four defenses. The answers claimed that the petitioners' petitions were filed late and so were barred under 39 M.R.S.A. § 95; they stated that the petitioners should be barred under 39 M.R.S.A. § 63 for failure to give proper notice of the accident; they alleged that the Commission was without jurisdiction over the accident because it occurred in an area of exclusive federal admiralty jurisdiction; they denied the allegations of the petitions.
In 1972 all four parties stipulated (for the purposes of testing jurisdiction) to the material facts in issue. The parties agreed that the Commissioner should first rule on the jurisdictional defenses asserted prior to any resolution of the petitioners' claims on other grounds. Therefore, on April 11, 1973 the Commissioner filed a decree in Haskell's case, and on April 13, 1973 did the same as to Joyce's case. Each decree in almost identical wording upholds the Commission's subject matter jurisdiction. 1
On May 5, 1973 a Justice of the Superior Court issued a pro forma decree affirming the April 11 decree of the Commissioner as to Haskell. On May 22, 1973 the Justice issued a similar pro forma decree affirming the April 13 decree of the Commissioner as to Joyce. From these two decrees the appellants have appealed to this Court. Because the facts and issues presented are virtually identical, we have allowed the two cases to be consolidated before us.
Despite the substantial nature of the issues before us, we find that we must dismiss both appeals as prematurely brought. In effect, the parties sought appealable interlocutory decrees from the Commissioner, finally disposing of the jurisdictional issues, before proceeding to hearing on the merits. As desirable as this may have appeared to the parties, it is a procedure not authorized by statute.
The jurisdiction of the Industrial Accident Commission is entirely statutory and all its actions must be based upon authority granted by statute. Conner's Case, 121...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Duchess Footwear
...as interpreted by this Court, required that the appeal process could be invoked only from final decisions or judgments. See Joyce v. Conary, 317 A.2d 794 (Me.1974) (premature appeal of decision respecting issue of jurisdiction of commission). It was also held that reviewability of Commissio......
-
Farrow v. Carr Bros. Co., Inc.
...derive their validity, if any, from the specific provisions of the Act. Levesque v. Levesque, Me., 363 A.2d 951 (1976); Joyce v. Conary, Me., 317 A.2d 794 (1974). Although compelled both by statute, 39 M.R.S.A. § 92, and case law, Ross, supra at 716, to construe the Act liberally in favor o......
-
Hird v. Bath Iron Works Corp.
...lacks statutory authority to grant equitable remedy of reformation of workers' compensation insurance contract); Joyce v. Conary, 317 A.2d 794, 795 (Me.1974) (commission lacks statutory authority to dispose of a claim in a summary fashion by ruling on the jurisdiction defenses asserted prio......
-
Toomey v. City of Portland
...statute." Anania v. City of Portland, Me., 394 A.2d 782, 784 (1978); Levesque v. Levesque, Me., 363 A.2d 951, 953 (1976); Joyce v. Conary, Me., 317 A.2d 794, 795 (1974); Conner's Case, 121 Me. 37, 40, 115 A. 520, 521 Furthermore, to hold that Section 104-A empowers the Commission in effect ......