Publications
April 21, 2016

Alert: Maine WC Board Appellate Division Addresses Several Cases Dealing with the Application of the "Retirement Presumption"

Maine Workers' Compensation Alert

Under the “retirement presumption” (Section 223 of the Act), an employee who terminates active employment and is receiving nondisability pension or retirement benefits is presumed not to have a loss of earnings as the result of compensable injury or disease under this Act. This presumption may be rebutted only by evidence that the employee is medically totally incapacitated.

In Wing v. NewPage, WCB App. Div. No. 16-5 (March 7, 2016) the employee was working modified-duty, receiving partial incapacity benefits, when he retired from active employment. The employee argued that his retirement was “compatible” with his work restrictions, that the work he was performing before retirement exceeded his restrictions and that he was essentially “forced” to work beyond those restrictions. The ALJ and Appellate Division rejected these arguments. The presumption was found to apply because the employee continued working, albeit light-duty, up to the date of retirement from active employment.

In Hallock v. NewPage, WCB App. Div. No. 16-6 (March 7, 2016) the employee retired from active employment at NewPage but first used accrued vacation time. The employee argued that the presumption did not apply because he had stopped working before retirement, because he had been on vacation. The Appellate Division rejected this, finding that the employee was actively employed at the time of retirement and the he was receiving a nondisaiblity pension: “Mr. Hallock was performing his customary work when he decided to utilize accrued vacation to get him to his retirement date. . . [he] did not take sick leave or otherwise request workers’ compensation benefits . . . . [he] was performing his customary work of his job, albeit with some difficulty, as of the date that he left work and took advantage of accrued vacation.” Judge Stovall dissented, arguing that Hallock was not "actively employed" when he actually retired and that the presumption should not apply because the employee technically did not work a day after he went on a scheduled vacation.

In Casey v. NewPage, WCB App. Div. No. 16-9 (March 22, 2016), the employee claimed she was not "actively employed" when she retired because she was working with restrictions for financial reasons despite her injuries, which constituted coercion by the employer. The Appellate Division affirmed the ALJ's denial of incapacity benefits finding the retiree presumption applied because the employee was actively employed at the time of retirement.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Maine WC Alert: Appellate Division Rules No Consequences Under 218 for Deferment of Receipt of Old-Age Social Security Benefits

In Pratt v. S.D. Warren (No. 19-3 [WCB App. Div. April 30, 2019]), S.D. Warren appealed a decision denying its Petition for Approval of Discontinuance of Incapacity Benefits. An employer may reduce incapacity benefits...

Publication

Maine WC Alert: Appellate Division Reiterates Requirement to Trigger Retirement Presumption

Maine Workers' Comp Appellate Division Reiterates That Working in Customary Job Until Retirement Constitutes “Termination of Active Employment” Sufficient to Trigger the Retirement Presumption In Capitan v. NewPage Paper (WCB 19-10 [App. Div. April...

Publication

Maine WC Alert: Appellate Division Addresses the Issue of Timely Notice in Two Recent Decisions

For claims for which the date of injury is on or after January 1, 2013, unless otherwise provided by the Maine Workers' Compensation Act, proceedings may not be maintained unless notice of an injury...

Publication

Maine WC Alert: New Legislation Brings Procedural Changes, Benefit Modifications

LD 756 (“ An Act To Improve the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act of 1992 ”), was signed into law by Governor Mills on June 17, 2019. LD 756 has an effective date of September...

Publication

Maine WC Alert: Appellate Division Upholds Ruling on Reinstatement Provisions and Termination of Benefits

Maine WC Appellate Division Holds That Ongoing Noncompliance with Reinstatement Provisions in Section 218 Precludes Termination of Benefits for Expiration of Durational Cap Under 213 Section 218 of the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act provides...

Publication

Maine WC Alert: Updated Version of Notice of Controversy (WCB-9) Must Be Used Effective February 1, 2020

Following the recent statutory changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Maine Workers’ Compensation Board has updated the language in Box 22 of the Notice of Controversy. This new version should be used as...

Publication

Maine WC Alert: MAE Unit Publishes Guidance on Compliance with Recent Amendments

The Maine Workers’ Compensation Board’s Monitoring, Audit & Enforcement Unit has issued a document to provide guidance on complying with certain recent amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act in P.L. 2019, c. 344 (LD...

Publication

Maine WC Alert: Appellate Division Clarifies Section 327 Death Presumption

Maine Workers' Compensation Appellate Division Clarifies Burdens of Production and Proof Regarding Notice in the Context of the Section 327 Death Presumption In Estate of Deyone v. ITG Brands, LLC (WCB App. Div. 19-7...

Publication

Maine WC Alert: Latest Appellate Division Rulings on Health Insurance Payments, Social Security Benefits

The Maine Workers' Comp Appellate Division recently issued rulings in the cases of Rich v. Maine Turnpike Authority and Butler v. City of Portland. Health Insurance Payments Made by Self-Insured Employer for Health Insurance...

Publication

Maine WC Appellate Division Addresses Refusal of Suitable Work and Notice

The Maine Workers' Compensation Appellate Division recently addressed cases dealing with refusal of suitable work and notice. Both decisions rely heavily on the specific facts of each case. In the context of a refusal...