Starbird v. Livermore Shoe Co.
| Decision Date | 12 March 1968 |
| Parties | Nellie STARBIRD v. LIVERMORE SHOE COMPANY and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
John G. Marshall, Lewiston, for appellant.
Clement F. Richardson, Portland, for appellees.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, MARDEN, DUFRESNE and WEATHERBEE, JJ.
On appeal from a Pro Forma Decree of the Superior Court. The petitioner, Nellie Statbird, was employed at the Livermore Falls Shoe Company, Livermore Falls, Maine.
On September 22, 1965 Mrs. Starbird was seated at a metal bench using a power operated sewing machine. Underneath the bench was a switch used to turn the sewing machine on and off. The petitioner in switching the machine off received an electrical shock resulting in injuries to the wrist and left arm. She received total compensation, which ended on October 17, 1965.
Mrs. Starbird returned to work on October 11, 1965 upon advice of her physician. She worked for four days and claims because of pain and discomfort she was unable to continue her work. She then again went back to work on October 18, 1965 and continued until November 1, 1965 when she again left her employment, saying that she was unable to work because of pain. She never returned to her employment thereafter. The petitioner filed for further total compensation by petition dated January 17, 1966, after the award of total compensation was ended on October 17, 1965. After a hearing on the petition for further compensation the Industrial Accident Commission dismissed the petition.
The issue presented is whether there was competent evidence to support the Commission's finding of fact.
Albert's Case, 142 Me. 33, 37, 45 A.2d 660, 661.
See Robitaille's Case, 140 Me. 121, 34 A.2d 473; Fisher's Case, 140 Me. 156, 34 A.2d 621; Gooldrup v. Scott Paper Co. et al., 154 Me. 1, 140 A.2d 765.
The burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish her contention by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Robitaill's Case supra. The medical testimony was supplied on the one side and the other by three doctors. In addition to the testimony of the doctors there was that of the superintendent of the mill, a nurse employed there and Mrs. Starbird. Dr. Weeks was first consulted by Mrs. Starbird on November 1, 1965 and he saw her a number of times between that first visit and April 14th of 1966. The doctor's diagnosis as of November 1, 1966 is shown by the following testimony:
'Q. Will you give us your diagnosis of your findings?
A. My diagnosis at that time was severe upper dorsal strain brought on by probably this electrical condition, this electrical shock, but it was a severe dorsal strain.
Q. What is your opinion, Doctor, as to her condition at that time with relation to her ability to work or not to work?
A. Well, I will take this lady's word for it if she couldn't work, she couldn't. And, my own opinion she was unable to work because of the pain she visibly experienced by manipulating this area or touching this area. * * *.'
The following testimony of Dr. Weeks relates to the condition of Mrs. Starbird on April 14th, the date when the doctor last saw her.
'Q. What was her condition the last time you saw her with relation to these complaints?
A. She was still having them.
Q. Was she showing any improvement?
A. Well, on the 29th, slight improvement. Been careful of arm.
Q. With relation to your findings what would you say as to her capacity and ability to work?
A. She was still unable to work.
Q. Is there any indication, Doctor, that Mrs. Starbird is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matthews v. R. T. Allen & Sons, Inc.
...they are supported by competent evidence and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. 39 M.R.S.A. § 99; Starbird v. Livermore Shoe Company, Me., 239 A.2d 170 (1968); Shaw's Case, 126 Me. 572, 140 A. 370 (1928); Houle v. Tondreau Brothers Company, 148 Me. 189, 91 A.2d 481 (1952). ......
-
Canning v. State Dept. of Transp.
...inferences that may be drawn therefrom. 39 M.R.S.A. § 99; Soucy v. Fraser Paper, Me., 267 A.2d 919 (1970); Starbird v. Livermore Shoe Co., Me., 239 A.2d 170 (1968). Whether a disability exists and the extent and nature of that disability are questions of fact. Bolduc v. pioneer Plastics Cor......
-
MacKenzie v. H. Tabenken & Co., Inc.
...of proof by a preponderance of "competent and probative" evidence on all essential elements of his claim. E. g., Starbird v. Livermore Shoe Co., Me., 239 A.2d 170 (1968). In the context in which the commission spoke, however, we attribute no legal significance whatsoever to the fact that th......
-
Pelletier v. Pinette
...of fact that Mr. Pelletier was at the time of the hearing, totally disabled due to his injury? This Court in Starbird v. Livermore Shoe Co. et al., 239 A.2d 170 (Me.) (1968), repeated what it said in Albert v. Lockwood Co., 142 Me. 33, 45 A.2d 660 'We do not review the evidence with a purpo......