Cited by

In addition, we construe the workers' compensation statute liberally to give the broadest reasonable effect to its remedial purpose.

In addition, we construe the workers’ compensation 3 statute liberally to give the broadest reasonable effect to its remedial purpose.

We interpret legislative intent from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language that the legislature did not see fit to include.

“Although we review the [BTLA’s] findings of fact pursuant to this deferential standard, we review its statutory interpretation de novo.” Appeal of Gamas, 158 N.H. 646, 648 (2009).

We interpret legislative intent from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language that the legislature did not see fit to include.

“Since there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the[] statutory provision[], we conclude that the statute is ambiguous, and we look to legislative history to aid our analysis.” Appeal of Gamas, 158 N.H. 646, 649 (2009).

Co., 160 N.H. at 317, and our review of the interpretation of statutes is de novo, see Appeal of Gamas, 158 N.H. 646, 648 (2009).

Co., 160 N.H. at 317, and our review of the interpretation of both statutes and administrative rules is de novo, see Appeal of Gamas, 158 N.H. 646, 648 (2009) (interpreting statute); Appeal of Murdock, 156 N.H. 732, 735 (2008) (interpreting administrative rule).

*841 Appeal of Gamas, 158 N.H. 646, 648, 972 A.2d 1025 (2009) (citations omitted).

Appeal of Gamas, 158 N.H. 646, 648 (2009) (citations omitted).

Appeal of Gamas, 158 N.H. 646, 648 (2009) (interpreting statute); Appeal of Murdock, 156 N.H. 732, 735 (2008) (interpreting administrative rule).

“Although we review the [BTLA’s] findings of fact pursuant to this deferential standard, we review its statutory interpretation de novo.” Appeal of Gamas, 158 N.H. 646, 648 (2009).

provision[].” Appeal of Gamas, 158 N.H. 646, 649 (2009).