of direct assistance and relief. 4 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 86.34, at 16-60 (1994); accord Crider v. Zurich Ins. Co., 380 U.S. 39, 41, 85 S.Ct. 769, 770, 13 L.Ed.2d 641, 643 (1965) (“The state where the employee lives has perhaps even a larger concern, for it is there that he is expected to return; and it is on his community that the impact of the injury is apt to be most keenly felt.”); Cardillo v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 330 U.S. 469, 476, 67 S.Ct. 801, 806, 91 L.Ed. 1028, 1035 (1947) (recognizing that a state has a legitimate interest in providing workers’ compensation benefits to its residents when they sustain an out-of-state injury); Dissell v. Trans World Airlines, 511 A.2d 441, 442 (Me.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 948, 107 S.Ct. 433, 93 L.Ed.2d 382 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the Iowa legislature may have thought
holding workers compensation claimant failed to prove statute requiring jccs approval for payment of attorneys fees was inadequate to achieve legitimate state interest in protecting workers holding that probation department employees are not county employees recognizing retaliatory discharge claim where employer prevented employees exercise of workers compensation rights because of employees intention to file claim holding that employees stress injury solely due to disciplinary proceedings was not compensable under workers compensation holding that employees residency in maine alone gave rise to a legitimate and substantial interest such that maine had jurisdiction of the employees outofstate injury under its workers compensation statute