December 21, 2021 Article

Maine Supreme Court Affirms Decision in Workers’ Compensation Case Regarding Notice Requirements

Maine Workers' Comp Alert

In Desgrosseilliers v. Auburn Sheet Metal (2021 ME 63 [December 16, 2021]), the question presented is whether an employee is required to give notice of his occupational disease claim to his former employer’s insurer when the employer no longer exists.

Auburn Sheet Metal and its workers’ compensation insurer MEMIC appealed a decision (Goodnough, ALJ) finding that Desgrosseilliers, who was last injuriously exposed to asbestos during his employment with Auburn Sheet Metal in 1994 (insured by MEMIC), was not barred from pursuing his claim for an occupational disease by the notice provision, § 301. Section 301 reads, in relevant part:

For claims for which the date of injury is on or after January 1, 2013, and prior to January 1, 2020, proceedings for compensation under this Act, except as provided, may not be maintained unless a notice of the injury is given within 30 days after the date of injury....

The notice must be given to the employer, or to one employer if there are more employers than one; or, if the employer is a corporation, to any official of the corporation; or to any employee designated by the employer as one to whom reports of accidents to employees should be made. It may be given to the general superintendent or to the supervisor in charge of the particular work being done by the employee at the time of the injury. Notice may be given to any doctor, nurse, or other emergency medical personnel employed by the employer for the treatment of employee injuries and on duty at the work site. If the employee is self-employed, notice must be given to the insurance carrier or to the insurance carrier’s agent or agency with which the employer normally does business.

(Emphasis added.)

Desgrosseilliers asserted that, under the statute, he had no obligation to notify Auburn Sheet Metal’s insurer within 30 days of the date of injury or otherwise.

The ALJ found, Desgrosseilliers “was under a duty to demonstrate that notice was provided to the employer or insurer within 30 days of February 26, 2016.” (emphasis added). “However, section 301 describes in plain language those people or entities to whom an employee must give notice in various circumstances. The only situation in which the employer’s insurer is specified as the recipient of the required notice is when the employee is self-employed. There is no contention that Mr. Desgrosseilliers was self-employed. Thus … for the purposes of section 301 notice, employer does not include insurer, except where specified.”

The Appellate Division affirmed. “Here, we are presented with a case in which the employee was under an obligation to notify his former employer of his injury, but that obligation arose at a time when that employer no longer existed. The ALJ found as fact and there is no dispute that Auburn Sheet Metal was ‘long out-of-business’ by 2016. The company had been owned and operated by Desgrosseilliers’s former wife who, the ALJ noted, had ‘passed away a number of years ago.’” The Appellate Division held: “When providing the statutorily required notice to an employer is impossible, and there is no specific legislative directive that the employee notify an insurer, the failure to provide notice within the time constraints of section 301 cannot be held to bar a claim. The term ‘employer’ in section 301 does not include the employer’s insurer and does not impose an independent obligation to notify an employer’s insurer of an injury—except in the circumstance of a self-employed employee.”

On appeal, the Law Court affirmed the decision finding, “[b]ecause neither § 301 nor the Occupational Disease Law, §§ 601-615, require an employee to give notice of his occupational disease claim to his former employer’s insurer when the employer no longer exists….” In doing so, the Law Court rejected MEMIC’s assertion that the section 301 should be read as though it requires notice to the “employer or insurer.” Section 102(12) provides:

If the employer is insured, “employer” includes the insurer, self-insurer, or group self-insurer unless the contrary intent is apparent from the context or is inconsistent with the purposes of this Act.

The Law Court found this interpretation confusing because it would require the Court to adopt an implied and alternate meaning to the statutory language in certain cases, but not others.

Firm Highlights

News

Preti Flaherty Partnership Announces Promotion to Partner of Kristin Collins and John Cronan, III

Preti Flaherty is pleased to announce that the firm’s partnership has named two new partners: Kristin M. Collins and John J. Cronan, III. Both attorneys stand out as distinguished practitioners within their respective fields...

Publication

Maine Workers' Comp Alert: WCB Meeting Notes for June 2021

The following are highlights from the Maine Workers’ Compensation Board’s meeting of June 8, 2021. Attorney Kate Gatti Rooks Appointed for Partial Term as Administrative Law Judge in Portland Attorney Kate Gatti Rooks was...

Publication

Maine Workers' Comp Alert: WCB Updates Guidance on COVID-19 Reporting and Related Requirements

The Maine Workers’ Compensation Board has updated its COVID-19 FAQ with current guidance and reporting requirements. Although the information offered is not legal advice and is not judicially enforceable, it is helpful direction in...

Publication

Maine Workers' Comp Alert: Maine Supreme Court Issues Decision Regarding Statute of Limitations in Coordination of Benefits

Maine Supreme Court Issues Decision in Charest v. Hydraulic Hose Dealing with Unique Statute of Limitations Issue in the Context of the Coordination of Benefits On March 30, 2021, the Law Court issued a...

News

U.S. News – Best Lawyers Ranks Preti Flaherty Among 2022 Best Law Firms

Preti Flaherty has been named among the 2022 Best Law Firms by the U.S. News – Best Lawyers rankings. To be eligible for ranking, a law firm must have at least one attorney named...

Publication

Maine Workers’ Compensation Appellate Division Update - November 2021

Below are two recent and interesting Maine Workers’ Compensation Appellate Division decisions. The first  deals with the compensability of injuries sustained in employer-sponsored athletic events. The second deals with the referral of an employee...

Publication

Maine Workers' Comp Alert: Appellate Division Affirms Decision Involving Gradual Injury That First Manifested at Home, Not at Work

In Thomas v. United Ambulance , United Ambulance appealed a Decision (Goodnough, ALJ) granting Thomas’s Petition for Award and granting in part his Petition for Payment. United Ambulance argued that the ALJ erred in...

Publication

Maine Workers' Comp Alert: Updates from the WCB February Monthly Business Meeting

The WCB met remotely on February 9, 2021, for its monthly business meeting. Following are some developments with respect to an appeal accepted by the Maine Supreme Court and claims related to Covid-19. COVID-Coded...

News

46 Preti Flaherty Attorneys Selected by Peers for Inclusion in Best Lawyers in America 2022, Including 3 “Lawyers of the Year”

Forty-six Preti Flaherty attorneys have been named to Best Lawyers in America 2022, including four “Ones to Watch” and three “Lawyer of the Year” recipients. Inclusion in Best Lawyers in America is considered a...

Publication

How to Avoid Misclassifying Your Employees Under the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act

What criteria are necessary to classify someone as an independent contractor and how can employers avoid misclassification and the repercussions that come with it? In this article, Preti Flaherty attorney and Mainebiz guest columnist John...