workfare program was not an employee for purposes of workers’ compensation. Id. The Court agreed with the ruling below that “petitioner did not establish a contract for hire and that the relationship between the parties was not voluntary.” Id. Similarly, in the present case, the relationship between Defendant and HSD was not voluntary. , 16. The question of whether Defendant was a public employee also requires a determination of whether government benefits are remuneration for services provided by workfare participants. 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>); see also Closson v. Town of Southwest Harbor,
holding that legislature clearly intended that workers compensation act and unemployment security act be construed together thus prohibiting worker from receiving both unemployment compensation and workers compensation payments for same period holding that an obligors voluntary unemployment would not affect his child support payments holding that unemployment compensation should not be deducted from a back pay award under the national labor relations act because failing to deduct unemployment payments does not make the employee more than whole holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments holding that assistance payments could not be considered for the purpose of requalifieation for unemployment insurance