Appellate Division Addresses Adequacy of Findings of Fact for Appellate Review

Under§ 318 of the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act:

. . . From the evidence or statements furnished, the administrative law judge shall in a summary manner decide the merits of the controversy . . . . The administrative law judge, upon the motion of a party made within 20 days after notice of the decision or upon its own motion, may find the facts specially and state separately the conclusions of law and file the appropriate decision if it differs from the decision filed before the request was made. Those findings and conclusions and the revised decision must be filed in the office of the board and a copy, attested by the clerk of the board, must be mailed promptly to all parties interested. . . .

When requested, an ALJ is under an affirmative duty to make additional findings to create an adequate basis for appellate review. Coty v. Town of Millinocket, 444 A.2d 355, 357 (Me. 1982).

If an employee requests additional findings of fact and conclusions of law under § 318 and submits proposed additional findings, the Appellate Division must not assume the ALJ made all necessary findings to support its conclusion(s). In such case, the Appellate Division reviews the original findings and any additional findings made in response to a motion for findings to determine if they are sufficient, as a matter of law, to support the result and if they are supported by record evidence. 

In Bisco v. SD Warren, WCB App. Div. No. 17-30 (September 22, 2017) an employee appealed a decision partially denying his Petition for Restoration, arguing that he proved a change in both medical and economic circumstances beyond a brief period awarded by the ALJ. In order to prevail upon a petition for restoration, the employee must demonstrate a change in circumstances sufficient to justify the restoration of compensation. This is typically done through proving a change in medical or economic circumstances.

Because the employee requested additional findings of fact and conclusions of law and submitted proposed additional findings, the Appellate Division must not assume the ALJ made all necessary findings to support the conclusion that the employee did not experience either changes of economic or medical circumstances beyond the limited period surrounding his surgery. 

The Appellate Division found the ALJ simply concluded that the employee had now shown a change in economic circumstances but did not specifically address this evidence or explain why this was insufficient to demonstrate a change in economic circumstances. The Appellate Division noted that the employee requested and submitted a proposed finding on the issue of whether increased pain due to the inability to take ibuprofen constitutes a change in medical circumstances that would justify revisiting the 2011 payment scheme beyond a recovery from surgery. The ALJs original findings do not address this issue and the Appellate Division found “some tension between his finding on the former effectiveness of ibuprofen and his conclusion that there had been no change of medical circumstances since the 2011 decree, except during the acknowledged closed-end period.” 

The case was remanded to the ALJ to make additional findings as to whether the employee’s failed effort to regain pre-injury earnings after the 2011 Decree constitutes a change of economic circumstances and whether the employee’s inability to control his symptoms with ibuprofen constitutes a change of medical circumstances.

The bottom line: When requested, an ALJ is under an affirmative duty under § 318 to make additional findings to create an adequate basis for appellate review. This case demonstrates the importance of adequate findings and the potential consequences on appeal without such findings. This is particularly important in the context of Petitions for Restoration or Review in which changed circumstances must be demonstrated, which is often a very fact-specific exercise.