Brackett v. A.C. Lawrence Leather Co.
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
559 A.2d 776 (1989)
- Written by Whitney Punzone, JD
Facts
On January 3, 1978, Jeffrey Brackett (plaintiff) suffered a back injury while employed with A. C. Lawrence Leather Co. (Lawrence) (defendant). Brackett was awarded total-disability benefits for four days after his back injury and from September 8, 1978, to January 15, 1979. Brackett returned to work full-time until he was injured again in two non-work-related accidents in 1985. Since then, Brackett had had back surgery and was totally incapacitated. Brackett filed a petition for restoration of 100 percent benefits. The hearing commissioner of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (the commission) granted Brackett’s petition, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The hearing commissioner found that the 1978 injury was causally connected to Brackett’s incapacity. Lawrence and its insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (Liberty) (defendant), appealed. Lawrence argued that Brackett’s total incapacity should be apportioned between his 1978 work-related injury and his two 1985 non-work-related injuries. To support its position, Lawrence argued that even though the commissioner found a causal connection, the commissioner also found that the 1985 injuries were probably major contributing factors to Brackett’s incapacity.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKusick, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.