Maine WCB to Take up Rule Proposals in April 2018

The Maine Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) Rules Task Force has worked on developing a set of rule proposals since October 2016. These proposed rules will go before the WCB for a vote on April 3, 2018, at which time the formal rule-making process may begin. The following are some highlights: 

Notice to an Out-of-Business Employer (WCB Rules c. 1, § 1-A)

A proposed amendment would provide a claim notice mechanism when an employer is out of business and there is no one connected to the business to receive notice of a claim. The proposed rule provides that an employee can give notice of an occupational disease or injury to the Board when an employer is out of business and its insurer is unknown. Rule 1.1 is not triggered until a claim for benefits is received by the insurer, third-party administrator, or the employer’s self-insurance administrator. As a practical matter, such cases often arise in the occupational disease context where exposure is alleged many years prior to a claim being made.

Fringe Benefit Inclusion in Average Weekly Wage (WCB Rules c. 1, § 5(1)(A)(3))

The proposed amendment would provide that fringe benefits include the employer’s cost to provide pension benefits, including 401(k) matching funds, but excluding 401(k) matching funds which are reduced, but not completely discontinued.

Average Weekly Wage Calculation (WCB Rules c. 1, § 5(2)(C))

The employer/insurer may adjust the average weekly wage once using a WCB-4 within 90 days after making the first lost-time payment on a claim to correct an error. The employee may invoke dispute resolution if the adjustment results in decreased compensation. If greater than 90 days, the employer/insurer must use a WCB-8. This modification gives an employer/insurer one chance to fix an incorrect average weekly wage. However, the change must be made within 90 days of the first indemnity payment. Thereafter, any change must be made through the filing of a WCB-8.

Medical Only Claims: First Report of Injury (WCB Rules c. 3, § 1-A)

The amendment would require First Reports of Injury on medical-only claims. Under the amendment, an employer must complete a First Report (WCB-1) within 7 days after the employer receives notice or knowledge of an injury that requires the services or a health provider but has not caused the employee to lose a day’s work. A copy of the First Report must be sent to the employee and the employer’s insurer within 24 hours after completion.

Section 312 IMEs (WCB Rules c. 4, § 4(1))

A proposed amendment would address who pays for a § 312 independent medical examiner (IME) in an apportionment claim and who pays if there is no apportionment. The proposed amendment provides that, in the event the § 312 exam is scheduled to determine apportionment responsibility between employers, the employer/insurer that requested the exam pays for the exam and report unless otherwise agreed between the parties. If any employee requests the exam, all employers/insurers that are parties to the proceeding must, unless agreed otherwise, split the cost equally.

Reimbursement/Payment Agreements (WCB Rules c. 5, 1.07(6)(E))

A proposed Rule would address a problem the Board is facing with payors who claim a contractual right to pay less than the amount set forth in the fee schedule. Under the proposed rule, if a dispute arises as to whether there is a payment agreement that supersedes the maximum allowable payment otherwise payable, the burden is on the party invoking a payment agreement to provide a written contract within 30 days of a provider’s request. The contract must establish the party’s right to pay an amount different than provided in the Board’s Rules. If the contract is not produced within 30 days of a request, the bill will be subject to the maximum allowable amount.

Payment Procedures (WCB Rules c. 8, § 11(2))

The Board notes that indemnity payments are paid for incapacity. If there is no incapacity, there should be no obligation to pay lost time benefits. With respect to reductions or discontinuances pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 205(9)(A), under the proposed Rule, an employer may discontinue benefits regardless of the employee’s actual earnings if:

1. The employee is released to return to work without restrictions or limitations due to the injury for which benefits are being paid by the employee’s treating health providers; 
2. There are no conflicting medical records with respect to the lack of restrictions or limitations due to the injury for which benefits are being paid; and 
3. The employee, instead of returning to work, receives vacation pay, “paid time off” its equivalent, or holiday pay instead of regular wages. 

Payment Procedures (WCB Rules c. 8, § 18(1))

A proposed amendment to this Rule would provide that parties will now be able to discontinue benefits during a period covered by a 21-day letter. Under the proposed Rule, “The Consent Between Employer and Employee (WCB-4A) may be used when the parties agree to discontinue or reduce benefits during the 21-day period following the filing of a Certificate of Discontinuance of Reduction of Compensation (WCB-8).”

Coordination of Benefits Paid Pursuant to “Paid Time Off” or Equivalent Plans (WCB Rules c. 9, § 3(2)(2)(A-C))

The Rule would clarify how paid time off is to be treated and coordinated. In particular, proposed section C addresses the way some employers characterize time off and provides a formula for calculating a set-off in those cases. The proposed Rule provides: 

1. Paid time off or equivalent plan means an employer-paid benefit that covers both sick leave and vacation leave. 
2. If a paid time off or equivalent plan designates a specific portion of the benefit as sick leave, an employer/insurer may reduce benefits, as set forth in 39-A M.R.S.A. § 221(3)(A)(2) by the amount designated as sick leave. 
3. If a paid time off or equivalent plan does not designate a specific portion of the benefit a sick leave, an employer/insurer may reduce benefits, as set forth in 221(3)(A)(2), by 25% of the paid time off or equivalent plan payment received by the employee.

Social Security Notice to Employee (WCB Rules c. 9, § 3(D))

A proposed Rule would allow employers to notify an employee if the employee is receiving old age Social Security Benefits.

312 IME Request (WCB Rules c. 12, § 10(1))

A proposed Rule sets forth deadlines for § 207 and § 312 IME requests when a claim is in litigation. The proposed Rule provides:

1. If a § 312 exam has been requested prior to filing of the Joint Scheduling Memo, the parties must state on the memo the date of the request, whether it has been approved by the Board, and, if so, the name of examiner and date of exam. 
2. If a § 207 exam has been requested prior to the filing of the Joint Scheduling Memo, the parties must state on the memo the date of the request, name of examiner, and date of the exam. 
3. If a § 312 exam has not been requested prior to the filing of the Joint Scheduling Memo, a request must be made no later than 30 days from the date of filing. 
4. If a § 207 exam has not been requested prior to the filing of the JSM, a request must be made no later than 30 days from the date of filing. 

Work Search Evidence (WCB Rules c. 12, § 11(1))

A proposed Rule addresses an employee’s obligation when work search evidence is going to be introduced. The Rule provides that no later than 30 days after mediation or the filing of a petition, whichever is later, the employee shall provide the employer with the work search or labor market evidence the employee intends to introduce into evidence. The employee must use a standard Board work search log and include, at minimum, names of prospective employers, dates of application, responses to the application, if any, and whether the application was submitted in person, by mail, electronically, or by some other means.

Surveillance Evidence (WCB Rules c. 12, § 11(4)(A))

A proposed Rule would address the employer’s obligation with respect to surveillance evidence. Under the Rule, the employer must provide all surveillance information to the employee developed since the date of injury, or since the last decree, whichever is shorter, in connection with the claim, and provide an affirmation that all surveillance evidence has been provided. The employer must provide the surveillance to the employee within 14 days after the employer receives the information from the employee, and in no event later than 7 days before hearing.

The Rules will be voted on April 3, 2018. If approved, this will allow the formal rule-making process to begin, which includes review by the Governor’s office, publication of a rule-making hearing, a hearing, comment period, additional Board vote and review by the Attorney General’s Office, and filing with the Secretary of State. Stay tuned for more updates.

Recent Appellate Division Cases: Benefits Reduction Due to Erroneous Calculations, Improper Communications with § 312 Examiner

Penalties for Reducing Benefits After Years of Improper Calculations

In Puiia v. Rumford Paper Co. (Me. WCB App. Div. No. 17-34), the Maine Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) Appellate Division will hear oral argument in a case in which the employee sought the imposition of penalties based on the employer/insurer’s reduction of incapacity benefits. The employee had been paid 100% partial benefits pursuant to a March 2008 Decree that stated, “The employee is entitled to 100% partial benefits (limited by the statutory maximum) for the period November 28, 2006, through the present, and continuing.”

Per the above order, the Employee began paying weekly compensation of $574.08. On June 30, 2018, the Employer filed a Modification of Compensation, increasing benefits to $596.42 per week effective July 1, 2008, the date the maximum weekly benefit amount (§ 211) was adjusted. Similar increases were made on July 1 of each year through 2013. However, effective July 1, 2014, the Employer reduced weekly compensation at a rate from $655.78/week to $492.96/week. The reduction was made because the Employer had incorrectly calculated benefits by including fringe benefits (under § 102(4)(H) fringe benefits are not to be included in the benefit calculation if the resulting benefit amount exceeds 2/3 of the State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) at the time of injury). In this case, the employee’s full compensation rate was an amount in excess of 2/3 of the SAWW. Therefore, by operation of § 102(4)(H), fringe benefits cannot be included in the weekly benefit amount. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found, “[t]he fact that Employer erroneously did so for years does not require it to continue to make the same computational error.”

The WCB found that the Employer/Insurer correctly calculated benefits in accordance with the payment order in the 2008 Decree, resulting in a reduction of her benefits effective July 1, 2014. There was therefore no legal basis for the imposition of penalties under §§ 359 or 360.

Alleged Improper Communication with § 312 Examiner

In Leclair v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC (Me. WCB App. Div. No. 17-19), the issue before the Appellate Division is “[w]hether a violation of Board Rule Chapter 4 regarding communication with a § 312 examiner is sufficient to disqualify that examiner automatically or whether such disqualification is dependent on a finding of actual bias.” 

WCB Rules c. 4 § 3 provide in relevant part:

Contacts with the employee by the Board-appointed independent medical examiner will be limited to the scheduling of examinations and actual examinations. All communication between the examiner and the parties must be in writing and, except for questions which a party requests that the examiner address in the report, may only occur by agreement or with the permission of the hearing officer. Any such communication must be received by the Board and copied to all opposing parties not later than fourteen (14) days prior to any examination and must clearly and conspicuously state that the communication has been agreed to by the parties or approved by a hearing officer. Communications that comply with this subsection will be forwarded to the examiner through the Office of Medical/Rehabilitation Services. Communications received by the Board on or after the date of the examination will only be forwarded to the examiner with prior approval of a hearing officer. 

In this case, involving an alleged gradual injury to the lungs and respiratory system, the employee was evaluated by a § 312 examiner. The § 312 examiner found the upper airway sensitivity to be an occupational injury. The WCB adopted these findings. The employer/insurer objected to the admissibility of the § 312 examiner’s report because, according to the ALJ, “employee brought with him to the examination written materials which were not submitted to the [insurance medical exam] IME consistent with Board rules.” However, the ALJ also noted that at this deposition, the § 312 examiner testified that the written materials the employee brought to the § 312 exam “made no difference to his diagnosis and causation opinion.”

The decision is expected to shed light on whether the WCB Rule at issue is a zero-tolerance provision or whether actual bias must be demonstrated to disqualify a § 312 examiner. 

Remaining Issues

The Appellate Division will also take up other issues during the February session, including sufficiency of findings to support ongoing causation, refusal of suitable work, and a change in circumstances in the context of work capacity, among others. The Appellate Division is set to hold additional sessions this year in April, June, September, and December.

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.