Abstract
In Bouford v. Bath Iron Works Corp., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that an employer is not entitled to credit disability payments made under the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) against a subsequent obligation to pay a permanent impairment award for the same injury under the Maine Workers' Compensation Act (MWCA). While adhering to the principle against "double recovery" by employees in cases in which there is concurrent jurisdiction of federal and state compensation schemes, the Law Court reasoned that state permanent impairment awards are not duplicative of LHWCA disability benefits because of different policy concerns underlying each. The significance of the Law Court's decision is that, at least implicitly, it held that defining double recovery is a matter of state law when state benefits follow federal. Two members of the Law Court dissented. Although agreeing with the majority that the permanent impairment award to Bouford under the MWCA was separate and distinct from the disability benefits Bouford received under federal law, the dissent argued that the majority had implicitly, and erroneously, resolved the issue as a matter of state law. In the dissent's view, the double recovery issue raised a federal question which had to be resolved by predicting how the United States Supreme Court would decide the matter. Accordingly, the dissent scrutinized decisions of the Supreme Court and recent legislation by Congress, and concluded that the employer was entitled to credit the federal payment notwithstanding the different nature of the state and federal benefits.
First Page
465
Recommended Citation
John A. McCauley,
Bouford v. Bath Iron Works: Defining Double Recovery Under State and Federal Compensation Laws for Maritime Workers,
39
Me. L. Rev.
465
(1987).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol39/iss2/10