Lamonica v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Applicability. When 2 or more occupational injuries occur, during either a single employment or successive employments, that combine to produce a single incapacitating condition and more than one insurer is responsible for that condition, liability is governed by this section. 2. Liability to employee. If an employee has sustained more than one injury while employed by different employers, or if an employee has sustained more than one injury while employed by the same employer and that employer was insured by one insurer when the first injury occurred and insured by another insurer when the subsequent injury or injuries occurred, the insurer providing coverage at the time of the last injury shall initially be responsible to the employee for all benefits payable under this Act. 3. Subrogation. Any insurer determined to be liable for benefits under subsection 2 must be subrogated to the employee’s rights under this Act for all benefits the insurer has paid and for which another insurer may be liable. Any such insurer may, in accordance with rules adopted by the Superintendent of Insurance, file a request for an apportionment of an arbitrator to determine apportionment of liability among the responsible insurers. The arbitrator’s decision is limited to a choice between the submissions of the parties and may not be calculated by averaging. Within 30 days of the request, the Superintendent of Insurance shall appoint a neutral arbitrator who shall decide, in accordance with the ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dorr v. Bridge Construction Corp. · Maine Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Folsom

2. “The basic entitlement to workers' compensation benefits under the Act, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 201(1) [Supp.2000], expressly defines a compensable injury with reference to the notice-of-injury provision set forth in 39-A M.R.S.A. § 301 [Pamph.2000]. For purposes of the Act, an injury is not 'work-related' if the employee does not provide notice of the injury. Because this appeal involves a work-injury and a subsequent nonwork-injury, the controlling statutory provision is 39-A M.R.S.A. § 201(5) [Pamph.2000].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cust v. University of Maine