USCA1 Opinion

          February 13, 1992




                                 ___________________


          No. 91-2284

            


                                BENJAMIN J. GUILIANI,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                   STATE OF MAINE,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE


                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                              Torruella, Circuit Judge,
                                         _____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, 
                                     ____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________


                                 ___________________

               Benjamin J. Guilliani on brief pro se.
               _____________________



                                  __________________

                                 __________________ 



















                    Per  Curiam.  Plaintiff's complaint alleged that he had
                    ___________

          been  injured while  working, had  had  to undergo  surgery as  a

          result, and  had lost  at least  34% of  his back  capacity.   He

          complained   that  the  Maine   worker's  compensation   law  was

          unconstitutional  because   it  prevented  him   from  suing  his

          employer,  the person he  felt was responsible  for his injuries.

          See  39 Maine Rev.  Stat. Ann.    4  (employer exempt  from civil
          ___

          action by an employee for personal injuries arising out of and in

          the  course of  employment).       The  district court  dismissed

          plaintiff's action after it had denied plaintiff leave to proceed

          in forma pauperis and plaintiff had failed to pay the $120 filing

          fee.

                    On  appeal, plaintiff  contends he has  improperly been

          denied access to  the courts because of  indigency.  We  need not

          determine whether plaintiff  is unable to afford the  $120 filing

          fee because we  conclude that even if plaintiff  had been granted

          in forma  pauperis status, the action should  have been dismissed

          under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a  claim upon

          which  relief can be granted.   See In  re Parque Forestal, Inc.,
                                          ___ ___________________________

          No. 90-2174, slip  op. at 16 (1st Cir. Nov.  19, 1991) (reviewing

          court  may affirm judgment  of lower  court on  grounds different

          from those relied on by lower court).

                    When  an  injured  employee is  covered  by  a worker's

          compensation  system,  the  statutory  remedy  is  typically  the

          employee's exclusive  remedy  against his  employer for  injuries

          arising  out of  employment.   A.  Larson, The  Law of  Workmen's















          Compensation   65.11  (1990).  Indeed, exclusivity  is central to

          the worker's compensation system:

                    [Exclusivity]  is part of the quid pro quo in
                                                  ____________
                    which the  sacrifices and gains  of employees
                    and  employers  are  to  some extent  put  in
                    balance, for,  while the  employer assumes  a
                    new liability  without fault, he  is relieved
                    of the prospect of large damage verdicts.

          Id.    65.11  at pp. 12-1  to 12-9.   And, exclusivity provisions
          __

          "have consistently  been held to  be constitutional."  Id.,  at  
                                                                 __

          65.20.   Consequently,  plaintiff's constitutional  challenge was

          without merit, and the action was properly dismissed.

                    Affirmed.
                    ________

































                                          3