June 7, 2017

Maine WC Appellate Division Places Burden on Employee to Prove Unavailability of Generic Prescription Drugs

Maine Workers' Comp Alert

In Belanger v. Miles Memorial Hospital, Me. WCB App. Div. No. 17-23 (May 25, 2017), Miles Memorial Hospital appealed from a decision of an ALJ granting, among other things, an employee’s Petition for Payment of Medical and Related Expenses, in part. The employer argued that the ALJ erred in failing to apply 39-A M.R.S.A. § 206(11) to deny payment for brand-named drugs. The Appellate Division vacated and modified in part the decision to the extent it required payment for brand-named drugs.

Section 206(11) (“Generic Drugs”) states, “[p]roviders shall prescribe generic drugs whenever medically acceptable for the treatment of an injury or disease for which compensation is claimed. An employee shall purchase generic drugs for the treatment of an injury or disease for which compensation is claimed if the prescribing provider indicates that generic drugs may be used and if generic drugs are available at the time and place of purchase under subsection 11-A. . . .”

The employer argued that because generic drugs were available on some occasions they must have been available at the time and place the employee was given the brand name medication. The employer alternatively argued that the burden of proof on the issue of whether generic drugs were available rests with the employee, and thus, the lack of evidence on this issue should have resulted in a denial of the employee’s claim for reimbursement of the cost of brand name drugs.

The Appellate Division read § 206(11) to place an affirmative obligation on providers to prescribe generic drugs and on employees to use the generic version if two conditions are met: (1) the provider has indicated that the generic version is appropriate; and (2) the generic version is available at the time and place of purchase. Except in unusual circumstances, the party filing a claim bears the burden of proof on all elements of that claim. The Appellate Division found “no reason to alter that burden in this circumstance.” Further, “[i]t is the employee who is present at the time and place of purchase of any medication. Placing the obligation on the employee to show unavailability of the the generic version of a drug is consistent with the affirmative burden placed upon employees by section 206(11), and is not an onerous burden.”

Firm Highlights


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...


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...


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...


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...


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...


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...


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...


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...


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...


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...