Mortimer v. Harry C. Crooker & Sons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1980 |
| Parties | Albert U. MORTIMER v. HARRY C. CROOKER & SONS, INC. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
McTeague, Higbee & Tierney, Patrick N. McTeague (orally), Maurice A. Libner, Brunswick, for plaintiff.
Robinson & Kriger, Sarah Allison Thornton (orally), James S. Kriger, Portland, for defendants.
Before McKUSICK, C. J., GODFREY, NICHOLS, GLASSMAN and ROBERTS, JJ., and ARCHIBALD, A. R. J.
In Mortimer v. Harry C. Crooker & Sons, Inc., 404 A.2d 228 (1979), this Court vacated the dismissal by the Workers' Compensation Commission of a petition for further compensation and remanded the case to the Commissioner for additional findings. After reconsideration in accordance with our instructions, the Commissioner denied the petition. Mortimer now appeals from the pro forma decree affirming the denial of his petition on the basis that the Commissioner's findings are not supported by the evidence. We affirm the pro forma judgment.
The facts of the case are set out in detail in our prior opinion. In brief, Mortimer was a truck driver with a limited education and few other skills. In addition to experiencing several personal misfortunes, including two divorces, Mortimer was involved in two recent truck accidents in the course of his employment. In the first, in 1971, Mortimer sustained a head injury causing him to miss work for approximately one year, for which he received compensation. He was diagnosed at this time as showing symptoms of traumatic neurosis. In 1975, Mortimer's dump truck left the road and rolled over one and a half times, with Mortimer suffering a shoulder injury and a blow to the head. Mortimer, who was sixty-one years old at the time of the second accident, has not returned to work, claiming that he suffers recurrent headaches and becomes very nervous when he goes near trucks or tries to drive.
By agreement with his employer, Harry C. Crooker & Sons, Inc., Mortimer received compensation for the shoulder injury suffered in the 1975 accident. In 1977, he filed a petition for further compensation for "traumatic neurosis and other nervous and psychiatric disability, and other related injuries" in addition to his shoulder injury. After taking oral and written evidence, the Commissioner dismissed the petition. In vacating the dismissal on Mortimer's first appeal, this Court instructed the Commissioner to determine on remand the following: (1) whether the employee currently suffers a psychological infirmity, (2) whether the disorder arose out of the 1975 collision in which the employee was injured, and (3) whether the employee is currently incapacitated on account of this infirmity. 404 A.2d at 231 n. 5.
After reviewing the evidence, the Commissioner found that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruton v. City of Bath
...(1981). As such, it is our duty to sustain the Commissioner's findings if supported by competent evidence. Mortimer v. Harry C. Crooker & Sons, Inc., Me., 423 A.2d 248, 250 (1980). This we must do even if, as in the instant case, there is other evidence in the record which would support a d......
-
Rowe v. Bath Iron Works Corp.
...the decree if the record contains competent and probative evidence supporting the Commissioner's findings. Mortimer v. Harry C. Crooker & Sons, Inc., Me., 423 A.2d 248, 250 (1980); Widdecombe v. National Sea Products, Inc., Me., 389 A.2d 39, 41 It is immaterial that there was also evidence ......
-
Hall v. State
...and that the application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor without rational foundation. See Mortimer v. Harry C. Crooker & Sons, Inc., Me., 423 A.2d 248, 250 (1980); Wing v. Cornwall Industries, 418 A.2d at The petitioner apparently does not challenge the Commissioner's find......
-
Brough v. Bell Pike Northeast
...competent evidence supporting the Commissioner's findings. 1 Bruton v. City of Bath, 432 A.2d at 392; Mortimer v. Harry C. Crooker & Sons, Inc., Me., 423 A.2d 248, 250 (1980). This is the case even if the evidence would also have supported a different conclusion. Bruton v. City of Bath, 432......