Cited by

“We construe the Workers’ Compensation Law liberally to give the broadest reasonable effect to its remedial purpose.” Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226, 230 (2013).

In reviewing the board’s findings, our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently or to reweigh the evidence, but rather, to determine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record.

Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226, 232 (2013) (assuming that our prior holding “conforms to legislative intent” when it had “been over four years since we issued our [prior] decision and the legislature [had] not seen fit to amend the statute”); cf. New Hampshire Retail Grocers Ass’n v. State Tax Comm’n, 113 N.H. 511, 514 (1973) (noting that “[i]t is

When reviewing the CAB’s findings, our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently than did the CAB, or to reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record.

When reviewing the CAB’s findings, “our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently than did the [CAB], or to reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record.” Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226, 235 (2013) (quotation omitted).

In reviewing the board’s findings, our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently or to reweigh the evidence, but rather, to determine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record.

In reviewing the hearing examiner’s findings, our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently or to reweigh the evidence, but rather, to determine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record.

“Thus, we review the factual findings of the CAB deferentially,” and “its statutory interpretation de novo.” Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226, 230 (2013).

"Thus, we review the factual findings of the CAB deferentially," and "its statutory interpretation de novo."

Our task on appeal is not to reweigh the evidence.

“Thus, we review the factual findings of the CAB deferentially,” and “its statutory interpretation de novo.” Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226, 230 (2013).

The following facts are taken from the record or from our prior decision in this matter.

We review the factual findings of the CAB deferentially and review its statutory interpretation de novo.

In addition to our standard principles of statutory interpretation, “[w]e construe the Workers’ Compensation Law liberally to give the broadest reasonable effect to its remedial purpose.” Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226, 230 (2013).

We review the factual findings of the CAB deferentially and review its statutory interpretation de novo.

“The doctrine of stare decisis demands respect in a society governed by the rule of law, for when governing legal standards are open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will with arbitrary and unpredictable results.” Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226, 231 (2013) (quotation omitted).

In reviewing the Board’s findings, our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently or to reweigh the evidence, but rather, to determine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record.

We review matters of statutory interpretation de novo.