April 17, 2014 Article

Maine Workers' Compensation Board Appellate Division Updates

Maine Workers' Compensation Alert

Handicapped-accessible housing as a "physical aid" under 39-A M.R.S. § 206(8)
In Chapman v. VIP, Inc., Me. WCB App. Div. No. 14-9 (March 10, 2014), at issue was the payment of rent premium due to an asserted need for handicapped-accessible housing on account of severe work injuries. The employer and insurer appealed a decision (Goodnough, HO) finding the housing constituted a "physical aid" under § 206(8), and awarding payment for additional costs as compared to the cost of regular non-handicapped housing.  The Appellate Division reversed, finding the employee failed to meet her burden of proof. First, the increased cost was primarily because the employee no longer had a roommate to share costs. Second, the apartment was federally subsidized with rent calculated based on income. No evidence was adduced to establish that the apartment cost any more than similar non-accessible apartments in the same complex or area, or that any portion of current rent was specifically attributable to adaptations.

Chapman suggests that payment for handicapped housing could be ordered under the right set of circumstances: "[a]lthough we do not reach the issue whether a rent premium could be deemed payable by an employer under section 206, we do conclude as a fundamental matter that reimbursement cannot be awarded absent some evidence of the portion of the rent that is attributable to a unit's accessibility."

In Bellefleur v. Fraser Paper, Ltd., Me. WCB App. Div. No. 14-10 (March 17, 2014), an employee appealed a decision (Pelletier, HO) denying a Petition to Remedy Discrimination. The employee sustained injuries in 2007 and 2008, following which, his restrictions increased. The employer continued to accommodate him. In the interim surveillance evidence revealed the employee performing activities inconsistent with his restrictions. Thereafter, the employee was terminated based on dishonest statements made to a § 207 examiner regarding his activity level. The employee argued that the Board applied an improper standard by requiring him to prove not only that the employer discharged him because he asserted rights under the Act, but that the employer had a punitive motive in doing so (the Board found the employee had "not met his burden of proof… that the disciplinary action… was the result of punitive action taken by the employer in response to his work injury."). Notwithstanding the Board's reference to "punitive action," the Appellate Division found the Hearing Officer did not misconceive the applicable legal standard, as he found competent evidence in the record that the adverse employment action was motivated by a good faith perception that the employee was not being honest about the extent of his physical capabilities.

Advancing a rather novel argument, the employee claimed the Board erred in finding him dishonest because the parties reached an agreement during a prior grievance proceeding to purge any references to discipline and dishonesty. The Appellate Division held "[a]n agreement of the parties to strike allegations of dishonesty from the employment record does not prevent the hearing officer from hearing evidence and finding facts in a later action for discrimination relevant to the employer's state of mind at the time."

Bellefleur makes clear that termination based on dishonesty with respect to work capacity can withstand a Petition to Remedy Discrimination. Moreover, a Hearing Officer has wide latitude to consider all evidence, even that stricken from prior proceedings unrelated to the workers' compensation matter.

For more information about this alert or Preti Flaherty's Workers' Compensation Group, contact any of our Workers' Compensation attorneys

Firm Highlights


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 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...


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 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: 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 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: 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: 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...