Radvanovsky v. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs Employment Security Commission

4 Citing cases

  1. Coker v. City of Lewiston

    710 A.2d 909 (Me. 1998)   Cited 14 times

    Coker argues that the value of work performed by a general assistance recipient pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4316-A(2)(A) must be offset against the general assistance received, thus limiting the municipality's recovery pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4318. The City, relying on Radvanovsky v. Maine Dept. of Manpower Affairs, 427 A.2d 961 (Me. 1981) and Closson v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 512 A.2d 1028 (Me. 1986), contends that the work performed has no value other than to establish the recipient's continuing eligibility to receive general assistance. [¶ 6] When the Superior Court reviews a municipal decision pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001-11007 (1989), we review the decision of the municipality directly.

  2. Closson v. Town of Southwest Harbor

    512 A.2d 1028 (Me. 1986)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a workfare participant is not an employee of a municipality for the purposes of workers' compensation, because participant neither received nor could have expected to receive remuneration or wages for the services that he performs

    See Harlow v. Agway, Inc., 327 A.2d 856, 859 (Me. 1974). In Radvanovsky v. Maine Dep't of Manpower Affairs, 427 A.2d 961 (Me. 1981), we held that the services performed under the general assistance program by a welfare recipient were not furnished for remuneration or wages. The plaintiff had argued that the value of the work performed to maintain his eligibility for assistance payments was the equivalent of earnings that should be counted to determine whether he re-established eligibility for unemployment benefits.

  3. State v. Dartez

    124 N.M. 455 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that counsel's failure to interview or subpoena the confidential informant was not ineffective assistance in absence of any indication that the confidential informant's testimony would have benefitted the defendant

    Other courts have held that workfare participants earn for their services "not remuneration but rather continued eligibility for receiving general assistance[.]" Radvanovsky v. Maine Dep't of Manpower Affairs Employment Sec. Comm'n, 427 A.2d 961, 963 (Me. 1981) (holding that assistance payments could not be considered for the purpose of requalification for unemployment insurance); see also Closson v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 512 A.2d 1028, 1030 (Me. 1986) (holding that a workfare participant is not an employee of a municipality for the purposes of workers' compensation, because participant neither received nor could have expected to receive remuneration or wages for the services that he performs); Durand, 537 A.2d at 131 ("[T]he source of money received by petitioner was a grant of public funds, and therefore, the money could not be characterized as wages or remuneration."). We agree with these courts and hold that workfare participants under the current system do not receive "remuneration" for the work they perform pursuant to the Project Forward Program.

  4. State v. Dartez

    1998 NMCA 9 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998)

    Other courts have held that workfare participants earn for their services "not remuneration but rather continued eligibility for receiving general assistance[.]" Radvanovsky v. Maine Dep't of Manpower Affairs Employment Sec. Comm'n, 427 A.2d 961, 963 (Me. 1981) (holding that assistance payments could not be considered for the purpose of requalification for unemployment insurance);see also Closson v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 512 A.2d 1028, 1030 (Me. 1986) (holding that a workfare participant is not an employee of a municipality for the purposes of workers' compensation, because participant neither received nor could have expected to receive remuneration or wages for the services that he performs);Durand, 537 A.2d at 131 ("[T]he source of money received by petitioner was a grant of public funds, and therefore, the money could not be characterized as wages or remuneration."). We agree with these courts and hold that workfare participants under the current system do not receive "remuneration" for the work they perform pursuant to the Project Forward Program.