August 5, 2019 Article

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

Maine Workers' Comp Alert

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 is given within 30 days after the date of injury. (39-A M.R.S.A. 301)

Two recent decisions illustrate the very fact-specific determination of whether notice was timely and what type of evidence is required to support a finding of timely notice.

Flesher v. Inland Hospital

In Flesher v. Inland Hospital (WCB App. Div. No. 19-25 [July 26, 2019]), Inland Hospital argued that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in finding that the Hospital had adequate notice of an injury.

Flesher had a longstanding back condition. In June 2012, at work, Flesher’s back pain worsened. On August 30, 2012, Flesher’s back pain intensified after she hand-carried a stack of charts. She called the supervisor to say she would not be coming in the next day. On August 31, 2012, Flesher spoke with Beth Clifford, whose job was to handle HR issues for the Hospital. Ms. Clifford asked Flesher if this was a workers’ compensation issue. Flesher responded, “no, because I had a prior existing condition with my back anyway.” At that time, Flesher did not understand that an aggravation of a preexisting condition could be compensable. On October 4, 2012, while seated at home, she felt “a complete burst” in her back. She was taken to the hospital.

In finding timely notice, the ALJ found Flesher (1) “had told her supervisor in the records room that the file retrieval work was causing her increased back pain,” which caused her to request a different assignment; and (2) that while “Ms. Flesher mistakenly believed that her preexisting back condition would prevent her from making a workers’ compensation claim, Ms. Clifford, whose job was to handle human resource issues and workers’ compensation claims for Employer’s hospital, presumably understood that this was not the case.”

The Appellate Division found that “Ms. Clifford did not testify at the hearing. The ALJ attributed to the Hospital specific knowledge concerning workers’ compensation law that she presumed Ms. Clifford knew. Without evidence on the point, this was unwarranted speculation.” As for the ALJ’s finding, that Flesher “had told her supervisor in the records room that the file retrieval work was causing her increased back pain,” this is unsupported by competent evidence. Although this finding may have been inferred from Flesher’s testimony that she requested a different assignment after a day or two working in the records room, “it is unclear whether the ALJ would determine that this finding, standing alone, provides an adequate basis for finding timely notice.”

Gelinas v. CMP

In Gelinas v. CMP (WCB App. Div. No. 19-26 [July 26, 2019]), CMP appealed from a decision granting a Petition for Award regarding a September 18, 2014, gradual back injury, asserting that the ALJ erred in finding that Mr. Gelinas had established timely notice pursuant to § 301. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Gelinas worked on power lines for CMP. In 2014, his job responsibilities increased. He began traveling significantly more in a company truck. He began to experience progressively worsening back pain, which he attributed to the seat in the truck. In January 2015, Gelinas underwent an MRI, which showed a disc herniation in his lower back. Gelinas notified his supervisor of the MRI results. He filed his Petitions the following month.

In October 2015, a § 312 examiner found that the back injury manifested on January 26, 2015. The ALJ rejected the examiner’s opinion, finding that the injury manifested itself in 2014, and Gelinas was aware during that time that the cause of his back pain was the seat in the company truck. The ALJ established the date of injury as September 18, 2014 (the date Gelinas underwent X-ray imaging of his back).

The ALJ found that “[Gelinas] informed [CMP] of what he knew when he knew it,” and that Gelinas “directly connected his back problems to a faulty seat in his work truck and in a timely manner told his supervisor about that fact.” The ALJ found that Gelinas “directly connected his back problems to a faulty seat in his work truck and in a timely manner told his supervisor about that fact.”

The Appellate Division found, “[i]t was reasonable for the ALJ to infer that [Gelinas] informed the supervisor that the seat was the source of his low back pain. Although [Gelinas] did not explicitly testify that he complained about the seat as the cause of his injury, the ALJ’s finding that he informed CMP of his back problems when reporting the faulty seat is a reasonable and logical inference, more than mere surmise or conjecture, derived from competent evidence.” Gelinas reported his back injury as work-related within the statutory time frame.

Firm Highlights


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: 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 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 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...


Preti Flaherty Ranked Among U.S. News – Best Lawyers 2020 Best Law Firms

Preti Flaherty has been named among the 2020 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...


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...


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: 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: 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...