Modifying Incapacity Benefits—Certificates and Petitions for Review

The nature, extent, and/or level of incapacity often becomes a disputed issue in workers’ compensation claims. This could be due to a medical release assessing work capacity for an individual who was previously medically totally incapacitated, or a medical release assessing less stringent restrictions for an individual previously partially incapacitated with stricter restriction. It could also be a job offer, labor market findings that the employee has earning capacity within physical limitations, or surveillance evidence, among other things. 

The simplest approach to a discontinuance or reduction is in 39-A M.R.S.A. § 205(9)(A) of the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act. Incapacity benefits may be reduced or discontinued upon an employee’s return to work at the same employer. Oftentimes, however, this is not an option. 

If no payment scheme is in place (i.e., payment is being made non-prejudicially), § 205(9)(B) can be used to unilaterally reduce or discontinue incapacity benefits. Here, a WCB-8 Certificate of Discontinuance/Reduction of Compensation must be filed with the Workers’ Compensation Board by certified mail and sent by certified mail to the employee. The WCB-8 must be supported with the sort of evidence referenced above. In such a case, the employee may challenge this with an employee Petition for Review and request a Provisional Order reinstating benefits. The case then proceeds into formal litigation. 

What about when an employer/insurer wishes to take action but a payment scheme is in effect (approved agreement by the Board, Decree, accepted Memorandum of Payment)? The avenue for relief is a Petition for Review. In such cases, the Board must set the matter for hearing and go through the formal litigation process to determine whether benefits may be reduced or discontinued. Petitions for Review may be filed under circumstances similar to those above which would prompt a WCB-8. However, the standard is high for Petitions for Review. To prevail on a Petition for Review, an employer/insurer must show there has been a change in medical or economic circumstances to reduce or discontinue benefits. 

Note that in determining whether changed circumstances may exist, careful attention must be given to identifying the basis on which the prior award was made. 

To prove a change in medical circumstances, comparative medical evidence must be provided. For example, an employee was found medically totally incapacitated in a prior decree, but recent medical evidence demonstrates that the employee has the capacity to work with restrictions. The comparison is made between the most recent evidence and the circumstances at the time of the prior Board decision or approved agreement awarding benefits. 

Among other things, evidence regarding the current labor market or evidence that an employee has performed a work search may be relevant to the determination of whether there has been a change in economic circumstances. In all cases, the key is to ensure the evidence is of the kind which will provide sufficient proof of a change in circumstances. 

Another circumstance where a Petition for Review can be filed is when the 520-week “durational cap” is approaching in cases where an employee is receiving partial incapacity benefits. Such a Petition is usually filed in advance of the expiration of the 520-week mark given the length of the litigation process.

Maine Workers’ Compensation Board Issues 2018 Annual Report

The Maine Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB), in conjunction with the Superintendent of Insurance and the Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards, has issued its 2018 Annual Report on the Status of the Maine Workers’ Compensation System. The report can be found online at: http://www.maine.gov/wcb/Departments/administration/troika.html.

The Report notes that dispute resolution continues to perform well. Compliance with the Workers’ Compensation Act is generally high. Claim frequency and compensation rates are stable. The Report states that the WCB, over time, has transitioned from an agency with a primary focus on dispute resolution to one which provides effective regulation and improved compliance and functions as an advocate for both injured workers and the employers for whom they work. 

There are signs of improvement from a financial perspective. Not long ago, Maine was one of the costliest states in the nation for workers’ compensation. According to the Report, Maine’s status has improved when compared to other jurisdictions requiring workers’ compensation. It has moved from one of the most expensive states in the nation to one that is in the average range for premiums and benefits. As an aside, the report notes that some national reports comparing Maine to other jurisdictions continue to fail to account for the very high percentage of Maine employers who are self-insured—about 40%. This is much higher than most states. When comparisons are made on a national basis, they do not account for the self-insured community and, as such, these comparisons do not give an accurate picture of the Maine workers’ compensation market. 

The Board continues to focus on controlling medical costs through the Medical Fee Schedule. In 1992, the Legislature mandated the adoption of a Medical Fee Schedule to help contain healthcare costs within the system. However, it was not until 2011 that one was implemented. The Report highlights the progress Maine has made in controlling medical costs when it adopted a medical facility fee schedule in 2011 and in updating all medical fees each year thereafter. 

The Board continues to strive to address the problem of employee misclassification and is also monitoring the national and state opioid crisis. 

Despite the generally positive trends, the Report does note that more can be done to improve Maine’s workers’ compensation system. Some difficult issues the Board has addressed—and continues to address—include:

• Administrative law judge appointments
• Electronic filing mandates
• Budgetary and assessment matters
• Rule revisions
• Form revisions
• Compliance issues
• Independent medical examiner recruitment and retention
• Workers' advocate resources
• Dispute resolution
• Increases in compliance benchmarks
• Independent contractor predetermination and assessment
• Medical fee schedule updates
• Data gathering and employee misclassification 

Overall, the Report is generally positive. According to the Board’s Executive Director, Paul Sighinolfi, the factors discussed in the Report are “evidence of the Maine workers’ compensation system’s gradual and continued improvement for both injured employees and the business community.”

Permanent Impairment and the 18% Threshold – What It Means and What to Expect in the Coming Years

Permanent impairment has been in the news in recent months. With the Law Court’s decision in Bailey v. City of Lewiston (2017 ME 160), it has held that an established permanent impairment rating is not subject to revision, even in the face of changed medical circumstances. In Somers v. S.D. Warren Co. (Maine Workers’ Comp Board [WCB] App. Div. No. 17-38 [November 13, 2017]), the Appellate Division held that the WCB may not revise a previously established permanency rating in an upward manner.

With the recent focus on permanent impairment, it is worth addressing the current permanency threshold and what it means for ongoing benefits.

Permanent impairment is “any anatomic or functional abnormality or loss existing after the date of maximum medical improvement that results from the injury” (39-A M.R.S.A. § 102). Maximum medical improvement is defined as, “the date after which further recovery and further restoration of function can no longer be reasonably anticipated, based upon reasonable medical probability.”

For injuries on or after January 1, 1993, permanent impairment no longer means additional benefits for an injured worker, but it plays a significant role in determining how long partial incapacity benefits can be received (the level of permanent impairment does not come into play for total incapacity benefits, which must be paid for the duration of disability).

If permanent impairment is below the applicable threshold, injured workers may not receive partial benefits beyond 520 weeks. However, if permanent impairment exceeds the threshold, benefits may continue for the duration of disability.

The permanent impairment threshold for injuries is as follows:

• Injuries from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 1997, the threshold is 15%
• Injuries from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 2001, the threshold is 11.8%
• Injuries from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2003, the threshold is 13.2%
• Injuries from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2005, the threshold is 13.4%
• Injuries from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2012, the threshold is 12%

For injuries on or after January 1, 2013, if, at 520 weeks, the partially incapacitated employee is working, earning 65% or less of his average weekly wage, and permanent impairment attributable to the injury is “in excess of 18%,” partial incapacity benefits may be required beyond 520 weeks so long as the employee continues to work and earn less than his average weekly wage. Regardless of the extent of permanent impairment or level of earnings, partial incapacity benefits may be extended beyond 520 weeks if the employee proves “extreme financial hardship due to inability to return to gainful employment.”

We are just over five years into a new permanent impairment threshold. In less than five years, those employees with injuries in early 2013 will be involved in litigation over cessation of benefits. The changes for injuries on or after January 1, 1993, will not begin to have a major impact until approximately 2022 or 2023, when the first group of employees with 2013 injuries will be involved in litigation over permanent impairment and cessation of benefits. Still, the threshold has an immediate impact when valuing cases for settlement purposes and planning for the future. Expect to see increased instances where individuals claim financial hardship, or continuing cases where employees try to allege they have 18% or more whole person permanent impairment. With this increased permanency threshold, generally only more serious injuries and/or injuries involving permanency from a psychological sequela will exceed the threshold.

WC Board Executive Director and Director of Audits Weigh in on Unsettled Issues; More Issues to Be Addressed

The Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) recently hosted an open forum featuring input from the WCB Executive Director, Paul Sighinolfi, and Director of Audits at the WCB’s Office of Monitoring, Audit and Enforcement (MAE), Gordon Davis. The following are some takeaways which clarify previous areas of concern.

Discontinuance of benefits for incarcerated employees 

A WCB-8 (i.e., a 21-day certificate) is not necessary to discontinue benefits for an incarcerated employee. Instead, a WCB-4 discontinuance may be used, and the “other” box should be checked, with “incarceration” listed as the basis for discontinuance.

Discontinuance upon a return to work for the pre-injury employer

When an employee returns to work, at his or her preinjury employer, on modified duty, and earns/exceeds his or her average weekly wage (AWW) for one week, a WCB-4 discontinuance will be accepted by the MAE. 

Otherwise, the WCB recommends that the employer/insurer reach out to the medical provider to clarify the M-1, or talk to the employee to verify he/she is not losing time due to the work injury (all conversations should be documented). The best practice is to enter into a WCB-4A Consent Form. However, an internal form signed by the employee, confirming no wage loss due to the injury is acceptable and the employee’s documented confirmation of the same will carry more weight in an audit than a traditional comparison of actual earnings to AWW. 

Vacation pay and sick pay 

Vacation pay is not to be considered regular earnings when calculating benefits. Sick time may be set off. 

Provisional average weekly wages

The MAE takes the position that, if there is uncertainty, an employer/insurer should “estimate a little low” for a provisional AWW, but anything “reasonable” is acceptable, such as an employee’s hourly rate multiplied by the hours the employee was hired to work. 

Calculating average weekly wages and completing wage statements

In preparing a wage statement, 12 weeks of wages are not required. If earnings are consistent but less than 12 weeks are available, one need not use comparable wages. We are reminded to use method D in 39-A M.R.S.A. §102(4) only if A, B, and C do not apply. In such case, wages used must be “representative” and one must have documentation to show how the AWW was arrived at. Ultimately, MAE will accept fair and reasonable AWW’s, even when other methods could also be fairly used.

Interplay between Form WCB-4A and a pending Form WCB-8

A WCB-8 will become moot if a WCB-4A consent form is filed. If an employee returns to work with the same employer earning his or her average weekly wage, or is incarcerated, a WCB-4 discontinuance can be filed, even if a WCB-8 was filed first.

The seven-day waiting period and firefighters

If an employee is concurrently employed as a firefighter, it is the job at which he/she was injured that controls. In sum, a firefighter injured at another job outside of firefighting still has a waiting period.

Fixed partial rates are preferred over varying rates

We are reminded that compensation can be modified to a fixed rate based on actual earnings, even if wages tend to vary but have “stabilized.” Even an employee who works a rotating shift schedule may be set at a fixed rate, so long as there is a rational basis. As well, initial Memoranda of Payment may be set at a fixed rate so long as a fair and reasonable basis is documented.

Fluctuating earnings

If there are earnings fluctuations with no relation to a work injury, and a claim is made, or if the employee still has restrictions, a Notice of Controversy (NOC) should be filed. If there is no claim made and no restrictions, just fluctuating earnings, no NOC should be necessary.

Vacation and the waiting period

If an employee on restrictions goes on vacation, and meets the waiting period, a pay decision is required.

Additional issues to be addressed

Among the issues still being considered are whether benefits can be discontinued without a WCB-8 upon a full release to work; the implementation of an “excusable neglect” standard for Rule 1.1 (i.e., the 14-day rule); and whether a percentage of paid time off (PTO) can be considered as sick time and subject to a setoff.

We will have more information on these issues and others as they develop.

Workers’ Compensation Board Rules Taskforce Proposes Changes to Workers’ Compensation Board Rules

The Workers’ Compensation Board Rules Taskforce has proposed changes and amendments to various Board Rules. The following are highlights of what has been proposed. 

WCB Rules c. 1 may be amended to provide that if an employer is out of business, has been sold, or changed its name since the last time the employee worked there, an employee’s failure to give notice of the injury does not bar a claim unless the employer designated a person or entity to receive notice and the employee was provided with that designation in writing.

There is a proposed amendment to WCB Rules 4 §4(1), which currently provides that the cost for a 312 IME is borne “by the employer.” Under the proposed rule, the fee for the examination and report would be borne by the employer/insurer that requested the exam and any other employer/insurer that is a party to the proceeding. If an employee requests the exam, all employers/insurers that are parties shall, unless otherwise agreed, split the cost equally. 

A proposed amendment to Chapter 5 would provide for a procedure to expeditiously go before an administrative law judge (ALJ) if a medical release is revoked and there is a compensation payment scheme in place. 

There are numerous proposed amendments to WCB Rules c. 6, the vocational rehabilitation rule. Proposals would establish minimum qualifications for employment rehabilitation providers and provide for two-year appointments. The proposed rule would provide that providers must clearly articulate why or why not an employee is suitable for vocational rehabilitation and, if eligible, provide a detailed employment rehabilitation plan, including a clear plan for workforce reentry, outline of expected costs, and estimated length of the plan. There are also proposed rules dealing with plan implementation procedures and conflicts of interest. Objections to proposed plans would be forwarded to an ALJ for review. Proposed amendments also provide that an employment rehabilitation plan may end if the provider states that services have been completed; the duration allowed under §217(5) has expired; the applicant is unwilling or unable to continue, or is otherwise uncooperative; the parties agree to end the plan; a hearing officer or ALJ orders the plan to end; or the workers’ compensation claim lump sum settles. Finally, with respect to § 355(7) which provides that, “upon an order of recovery of plan implementation costs under section 217, subsection 3, the board shall assess the employer who refused to agree to implement the plan under section 217 an amount equal to 180% of the costs paid from the fund under this subsection,” a proposed amendment provides that an employer/insurer could file a petition objecting to an order of payment of costs where an employee returns to suitable employment after completing a rehabilitation plan to which the employer/insurer did not agree to pay.

A proposed amendement to WCB c. 8, § 18 would provide that the Consent Between Employer and Employee (WCB‑4A) may be used when the parties have agreed to discontinue or reduce benefits during the 21-day period following the filing of a Certificate of Discontinuance or Reduction of Compensation (WCB-8). By background, currently a WCB‑4A may be used when the parties have agreed to a voluntary payment of a retroactive closed-end period of incapacity, or a modification, reduction, or discontinuance in ongoing weekly incapacity benefits. 

There are various proposed amendments to WCB Rules c. 12, which primarily relate to hearing procedures. This includes revised questions on the exchange of information forms, minor changes in procedures regarding exhibits, and for continuances of hearings. There is also a proposed provision which would expressly provide that a party is not prohibited from seeking a prospective order for payment of medical treatment if payment for that treatment or treatments, or related expenses, has been denied by the opposing party.

Appellate Division to Revisit (for a Second Time) the Issue of Refusal of Suitable Work in St. Louis V. Acadia Hospital

In St. Louis v. Acadia Hospital Corp., WCB No. 10002460 (April 14, 2017), the Maine Workers’ Compensation Board issued a decision dated March 4, 2015, finding the Employee had not refused an offer of suitable work and awarded partial incapacity benefits reduced by an imputed earning capacity of $300.00/week. The Employer appealed to the Appellate Division. A decision issued January 12, 2017, St. Louis v. Acadia Hospital Corp., App. Div. 17-3 (January 12, 2017), ordered that the case be remanded for a more complete analysis of whether the Employee unreasonably refused a bona fide offer of reasonable employment within the meaning of 39-A M.R.S.A. § 214(1)(A). 

The Employee worked as a certified nursing assistant (CNA) at Acadia Hospital. She was injured January 29, 2010. On account of this injury, the Employee experiences post-concussive headaches and an anxiety disorder with features of post-traumatic stress disorder. Because of her symptoms, she stopped working for the Employer August 6, 2013. She began a work search in February 2014 and found a part-time cashier position beginning February 10, 2014. The Employer sent the Employee a job offer on February 6, 2014, offering full-time work as a telephone operator and receptionist with a provision that the Employee would not be working in a patient care area or asked to be involved in restraining patients. This position paid approximately $12.00 per hour, while her position as a cashier paid $8.00 per hour. The Employee declined the offer because she had already accepted a new job as a cashier. The Employee testified that she was also concerned that, despite assurances, she still may have contact with patients through incidental activities like eating lunch. The Employer presented testimony from a human resources representative that the position offered was in a secured area inaccessible to patients and that the Employee was not required to take breaks or eat meals in areas with patients.

The Employee saw Drs. Carlyle Voss and Karyn Woelflein for independent medical examinations (39-A M.R.S.A. § 312). Dr. Voss found she, “could manage the basic duties of [a telephone] operator” and “could do similar work in another setting where there is low risk for being assaulted[,]” but “would be at significant risk to have symptoms escalate which could cause impairment that would preclude any type of work if she returned to work at Acadia or in another setting where there is increased risk for assaults.” Dr. Woelflein stated, “it would be imprudent for [her] to return to work at Acadia.”

The Employee argued that her refusal of the job offer was reasonable because she had already found work within her restrictions at a new employer and that the offered position was beyond her medical limitations. The Employer argued that the offer was reasonable as it was made only a few days after she began working for a new employer, paid higher, and was within her medical limitations. The Employer argued that § 214(1)(A) barred an award of partial incapacity benefits.

On the issue of refusal of suitable work, the Employer bears the burden of persuasion. In general, if an injured worker “receives a bona fide offer of reasonable employment” and the employee “refuses that employment without good and reasonable cause,” that employee is barred from receiving incapacity benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act “during the period of the refusal.” 39-A M.R.S.A. § 214(1)(A). The term, “reasonable employment” means “any work that is within the employee's capacity to perform that poses no clear and proximate threat to the employee's health and safety and that is within a reasonable distance from that employee's residence.” 39-A M.R.S.A. § 214(5).

When applying § 214, an administrative law judge (ALJ) “is required to undertake a two-part analysis, reviewing both the employer's actions in making the job offer and the employee's actions in declining that offer.” Thompson v. Claw Island Foods, Inc., 1998 ME 101, ¶ 7. When evaluating an employee's decision to decline a job offer, an ALJ must determine first whether the offer was a “bona fide offer of reasonable employment.” Id. The factors to consider include “whether the work falls within the employee's work capacity, whether it poses a threat to the employee's health and safety, and whether it is within a reasonable distance of the employee's residence.” Id. ¶ 8. Second, an ALJ must determine whether the employee refused that offer without “good and reasonable cause.” Id. ¶ 16. The reasonableness of the refusal is a broad inquiry; an ALJ “must consider all facts relevant to the employee's decision to decline the job offer.” Id. The Law Court has provided some guidance to this inquiry with a five factor test that is “not intended to be exhaustive or conclusive” but “represent[s] a sound general framework for decision making when the employee has refused an offer of reasonable employment:” (1) the timing of the offer, (2) if the employee has moved, the reasons for moving, (3) the diligence of the employee in trying to return to work, (4) whether the employee has actually returned to work with some other employer and, (5) whether the effort, risk, sacrifice or expense is such that a reasonable person would not accept the offer. Id. at ¶¶ 18, 19. 

Among other things, the ALJ found the position offered pays significantly higher than the work the Employee found on her own, but would have required her to abandon the cashier's position shortly after committing to it. Further, the ALJ found significant the medical opinions of Dr. Voss and Dr. Woelflein, which bear on her ability to return to work for the Employer. The ALJ found the Employer had not met its burden to prove that the Employee refused the offered job without good and reasonable cause. The Board granted the Employee’s Petitions for Award, in part, with an ongoing award of partial incapacity benefits reduced by an imputed earning capacity of $300.00/week. The matter is on appeal once again before the Appellate Division. 

Refusal of suitable work has generated a lot of decisions from the Appellate Division to date. This is due to the very fact-specific nature of these cases, particularly when it comes to the multifactor tests used in assessing a refusal defense. In this case, the binding medical evidence and the fact that the employee had already secured work before the offer was made were significant factors for the ALJ.

WCB Limits Requirement for Notice of Rights Leading up to Cessation of Partial Incapacity Benefits after 520 Weeks

For injuries on or after January 1, 2013, partial compensation is calculated using 2/3 of the difference between the employee’s average weekly wage and post-injury earnings subject to the maximum rates. An employee’s benefits are capped after receiving 520 weeks of partial compensation benefits. This cap may be extended in cases involving extreme financial hardship or as outlined below. 

For injuries on or after January 1, 2013, employees whose permanent impairment exceeds 18% may qualify for an extension of the 520 week cap. Entitlement to benefits is determined based upon the facts as they exist at the expiration of 520 weeks of benefits, and requires that: (1) the employee must be working and the employee’s earnings (as measured by average weekly earnings over the most recent 26 week period) are 65% or less than the employee’s pre-injury average weekly wage; and (2) the employee’s actual earnings are commensurate with the employee’s earning capacity, including consideration of the employee’s physical and psychological work capacity as determined by a §312 Independent Medical Examiner, and (3) the employee has earnings from employment for a period of not less than 12 months within a 24 month period prior to the expiration of the 520 week durational cap. Additionally, once an employee’s post-injury earnings (as measured by the most recent 26 week period) exceed the pre-injury average weekly wage, the employee’s entitlement to partial incapacity benefits terminates permanently. 

Pursuant to the Board’s rules, an employer can discontinue partial incapacity benefits at the expiration of 520-weeks of payment of such benefits but, according to the a Workers’ Compensation Board rule, only if notice is first given to the employee 21-days in advance of the upcoming date of discontinuance and of the employee’s 30-day right to request a hardship extension. The rule states:

1. Prior to cessation of benefits pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 213(1), the employer must notify the employee that the employee’s lost time benefits are due to expire. The notice must be sent at least 21 days in advance of the expiration date, and must include the date the lost time benefits are due to expire and the following paragraph:

If you are experiencing extreme financial hardship due to inability to return to gainful employment, you may be eligible for an extension of your weekly benefits. To request such an extension, you must file a Petition for Extension of Benefits within 30 calendar days of the date that benefits expire, or, in cases where the expiration date is contested, within 30 calendar days of a final decree as to the expiration date.

Failure to send the required notice will automatically extend the employee’s entitlement to lost time benefits for the period that the notice was not sent. 

Notice shall be considered “sent” if it is mailed to the last address to which a compensation check was sent.

WCB Rule c. 2, §5

In Lorraine Somers v. S.D. Warren Co., Me. WCB No.: 00017178 (Feb. 28, 2017) Judge Elwin found that the above rule applies only if the employer files a 21-day Certificate of Discontinuance. It does not apply when a Petition for Review is filed when the decision is issued after the 520-week limit has expired because the future “date of discontinuance” is unknown at that point. Judge Elwin held that applying the rule when a Petition for Review is filed would be illogical because the date benefits are “due to expire” depends on when the Board issues a decision. The decision was appealed. The Appellate Division will decide the matter on the briefs or, if requested and the case fits the criteria, after oral argument.

As an aside, a Certificate of Discontinuance can only be filed when benefits are being paid voluntary, without prejudice (i.e. payment is not being made pursuant to an “accepted” Memorandum of Payment, Record of Mediation or Decree). In all other cases, a Petition for Review must be filed to discontinue benefits.