benefits. See Dorey v. Forster Mfg. Co., 591 A.2d 240, 241 (Me.1991). By reason of the policies expressed in Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), the state’s rule barring suitors from bringing such an action de novo in its own courts must be applied to bar an original diversity action in the forum’s federal courts. See Feinstein v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 643 F.2d 880, 888 (1st Cir.1981) (stating that Erie policies requiring adherence to state door-closing statutes likewise require a federal court to apply state-created administrative limitations on rights to recovery) (citing Woods v. Interstate Realty Co., 337 U.S. 535, 69 S.Ct. 1235, 93 L.Ed. 1524 (1949)); Construction Aggregates Corp. v. Rivera de Vicenty, 573 F.2d 86, 96 (1st Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>); accord Dial v. Hartford Accident & Indem.
holding that in litigation arising from a product related injury in the forum state there are significant differences between the exercise of jurisdiction over a retailer who simply sold the product locally and the exercise of jurisdiction over a manufacturer whose products were sold over a large area holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive holding over holding that if puerto rico does not give its own courts jurisdiction over a claim collaterally attacking workers compensation rates for locally hired workers a federal court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction over the claim