|
Three recent Maine Supreme Judicial Court decisions
affect Maine workers' compensation:
1. Thompson v. Earle W. Noyes & Sons, Inc.
Employees do not automatically forfeit wage loss benefits when they accept
alternate employment at a lower pay than the existing post-injury employment.
-
The employee resigned his post-injury position at Noyes
and accepted full-time employment with a different employer that paid less than
his position at Noyes. Noyes argued this constituted refusal of a bona fide
offer disqualifying the employee from receiving additional benefits under
Section 214(1)(A).
-
The Court rejected Noyes' argument that accepting
alternative employment earning less bars recovery of additional partial
compensation. The Court sent the case back to the WCB to determine whether the
employee had "good and reasonable cause" and thereby accepted an offer of
reasonable employment.
The Lesson: Refusal of a higher paying suitable
post-injury job by itself will not disqualify an injured employee from receiving
additional wage loss benefits if the employee is found to have acted with good
and reasonable cause.
2. Legassie v. Securitas, Inc. Employer
responsible for injury-related incapacity to which a settled WC injury
contributes is entitled to an offset for the portion of incapacity attributable
to the settled injury.
-
The employee settled a 1995 Maine WC back injury. He
sustained another Maine WC back injury in 2003. The Maine WCB determined that
50% of the employee's post 2003 injury incapacity was due to the settled 1995
injury and ordered a 50% setoff of the employee's ongoing incapacity benefits.
-
The Court upheld the decision reasoning the offset is
appropriate to eliminate an employee double recovery.
-
The Court also held that such an employee may be
entitled to receive benefits based upon a higher average weekly wage
attributable to the prior settled claim with proof that the subsequent AWW is
lower because of the effects of the earlier injury.
The Lesson: Employers and insurers should obtain a
complete history of an injured employee's prior workers' compensation claims and
consider whether any settled claim involves an injury that may contribute to a
current period of incapacity, in which case an offset may be available.
3. Wilson v. Bath Iron Works The Maine WCB two
year statute of limitations runs from the date or injury or the filing of a
First Report of Injury, whichever is later, even if there was no obligation to
file the First Report at the time of injury.
-
The employee was found to have sustained an injury July
1, 2000. She did not then miss time from work. She filed a petition seeking lost
time benefits in 2004, at which time BIW filed a First Report.
-
The WCB found that the claim was not barred by the
two-year statute of limitations because the limitations period did not begin to
run until the filing of the First Report in 2004.
-
The Court agreed reasoning the plain language statute
specifically uses the phrase "whichever is later", and makes no exception claims
for which the Act does not require that a First Report be filed at the time of
injury.
The Lesson: Even though not required by the Act,
employers and insurers should consider filing the First Report with the WCB upon
notice of an injury, even though lost time is not asserted.
If you would like additional detail, or would like to
discuss any of the decision and their implications, please contact Evan Hansen,
Nelson Larkins, or James Bush at Preti Flaherty by email at ehansen@preti.com; nlarkins@preti.com; or jbush@preti.com or call
207.791.3000. | 
