May 16, 2017 Article

Maine WC Board Appellate Division Rules on § 312 Medical Findings

Maine Workers' Comp Alert


In Dunn-Morrell v. Viking Motors, Mr. WCB App. Div. 17-17 (April 19, 2017), the Employee was granted protection of the Act in 2007 for a May 8, 2003, low back and right shoulder injury. She was awarded ongoing total incapacity benefits. The Employee had a low back fusion in November 2010. She underwent further back surgery in December 2013. In April 2014, the Employee filed a Petition for Payment regarding the surgeries. Viking Motors filed a Petition for Review of Incapacity.

In April 2014, the Employee was seen by Dr. Donovan. Under § 312, the Board must adopt the medical findings of the appointed § 312 "Independent Medical Examiner" unless there exists clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Dr. Donovan found that the effects of the work-related right shoulder injury had ended, that the Employee continues to be subject to the effects of the work injury vis-à-vis the November 2013 sacroiliac fusion, and that the 2013 back surgery was not related to the injury. Dr. Donovan apportioned 90% responsibility for incapacity to nonwork-related conditions. Dr. Donovan issued a supplemental report finding a muscular release surgery was reasonable and proper but that a sacroiliac fusion was not proper.

The Judge adopted Dr. Donovan’s opinion that the effects of the right shoulder injury ended and that ongoing symptoms were related to a subsequent nonwork-related condition. Citing “clear and convincing evidence,” the Judge then rejected Dr. Donovan’s opinion, found that the back surgery was work-related, that the sacroiliac surgery was reasonable and proper, and that the Employee was 66% partially incapcitated due to the effects of the work injury. The Judge granted the Petition for Review and allowed Viking Motors to reduce payments to a 66% partial rate. The Judge also granted the Petition for Payment, finding all bills compensable except for those related to the right shoulder.

On appeal, Viking Motors argued to find that the Judge erred in rejecting some of Dr. Donovan’s opinions. The Appellate Division rule that, to find clear and convincing evidence to contradict § 312 findings, it must look to whether the Judge “could reasonably have been persuaded that the required factual finding was or was not proved to be highly probable” and determine whether “the [Judge] could have been reasonably persuaded by the contrary medical evidence that it was highly probable that record did not support the § 312 findings.”

On the issue of a subsequent nonwork-related condition, the Appellate Division found “[t]he [Judge] did not err when applying Section 201(5) to his factual findings, which are supported by the record evidence.” This, despite the fact that this “subsequent nonwork-related condition” was at one point a component of the work injury.

The decision illustrates the relatively low threshold allowed to reject a binding § 312 medical opinion and the heavy burden an appellant has to modify such a ruling before the Appellate Division. Also interesting is that the right shoulder constitutes a subsequent nonwork-related condition, despite the fact that it was previously part and parcel of the work injury.

Firm Highlights


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...


Preti Flaherty COVID-19 Resources

In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Preti Flaherty's attorneys have maintained a constant stream of the most up-to-date information and resources for our clients, business partners, and others struggling to navigate these complex...


Update on COVID-19 and Maine Workers' Compensation

In this uncertain time, Preti Flaherty wants to assure you we are still providing full coverage for your Maine Workers’ Compensation and Longshore legal needs. This update briefly addresses current laws and also touches...


Maine WC Alert: WCB Orders Remote Hearings Unless In-Person Deemed Necessary

COVID-19 Concerns Prompt Maine WCB to Order That Hearings Be Conducted Remotely Unless It Is Deemed Necessary to Conduct a Hearing In-Person On March 25, 2020, the Maine WCB issued an order regarding the...


Maine Workers' Comp Alert: WCB Announces New Nature and Cause of Injury Codes and FAQ for COVID-19

New Nature & Cause of Injury Codes The Maine Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) has updated the Injury Description Tables that are used by the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC) to...


Maine Workers' Comp Alert: Areas of Consideration Due to COVID-19

This alert addresses certain areas of concern with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic and Maine Workers’ Compensation. This alert touches upon new issues to consider, issues of concern for existing claims, and general concerns...


Maine Workers' Comp Alert: WCB Transition to In-Person Hearings Likely to Occur No Sooner Than August 2020; Section 312 IME’s Have Resumed

A conference with Maine Workers' Compensation Board Executive Director John Rohde was held last week to discuss the transition to in-person hearings at the WCB. The WCB Subcommittees also met to discuss recent developments...


WC Alert: Recent Developments from Maine's Workers' Compensation Board

Frank A. Graf, MD, Reappointed to Approved List of § 312 Examiners At the February 11 meeting of the Maine Workers’ Compensation Board, Frank Graf, MD, was reappointed to the list of approved § 312...


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 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...