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.

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.

Sporadic Lost Time, the Seven Day Waiting Period, and Rule 1.1

The Maine Workers’ Compensation Board recently addressed a case involving the time for payment of benefits, the statutory waiting period and the application of Rule 1.1, emphasizing the need to pay close attention to broken periods of lost time.

39-A MRSA § 205(2) provides:

2. Time for payment. The first payment of compensation for incapacity under section 212 or 213 is due and payable within 14 days after the employer has notice or knowledge of the injury or death, on which date all compensation then accrued must be paid. Subsequent incapacity payments must be made weekly and in a timely fashion. . . .

39-A MRSA § 204 imposes a seven-day waiting period before incapacity benefits are payable: 

§204. Waiting period; when compensation payable
Compensation for incapacity to work is not payable for the first seven days of incapacity, except that firefighters must receive compensation from the date of incapacity. In case incapacity continues for more than fourteen days, compensation is allowed from the date of incapacity.

The so-called “fourteen-day rule," per WCB Rule, c. 1 § 1, provides: 

§ 1. Claims for Incapacity and Death Benefits  

1. Within fourteen days of notice or knowledge of a claim for incapacity or death benefits for a work-related injury, the employer or insurer will:

A. Accept the claim and file a Memorandum of Payment checking "Accepted"; or
B. Pay without prejudice and file a Memorandum of Payment checking "Voluntary Payment Pending Investigation"; or
C. Deny the claim and file a Notice of Controversy.

For cases where the employee does not lose consecutive days from work, the methodology recommended by the Workers’ Compensation Board’s Monitoring Audit and Enforcement Unit is to file a Memorandum of Payment (MOP) or Notice of Controversy (NOC) “on the sixth day after ‘day 8.’” In other words, once an employee has missed eight nonconsecutive days of work, a MOP or NOC should be filed with the Board on the sixth day thereafter.

In Bendtson v. Penobscot Bay Medical Center, WCB No.: 16-004591 (October 18, 2017), the Employee in Bendtson worked as a certified nursing assistant (CNA). She was hurt lifting a resident on March 1, 2016. She was provided with a transitional work assignment from March 1, 2016, to April 1, 2016. She called out before her scheduled shift on March 1 as she claimed she was in too much pain to work. She called out again before her next scheduled shift on March 4, 2016. On March 8, 2016, she was assessed with modified work capacity. Over the next two weeks, she worked several light-duty shifts but also called out twice due to her back. On March 22, 2016, the employee checked herself into a facility for unrelated treatment, but was discharged March 28, 2016. On that date, she told her Employer that she was unable to work on account of neck/upper back pain.

In sum, the employee called out or was taken out of work by a medical provider on seven nonconsecutive days (March 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 18). The NOC was required to be filed six days after “day 8.” In this case, “day 8” did not occur until after March 28. The administrative law judge (ALJ) noted, “whether there was a fourteen-day violation depends on how much time [the Employee] was out of work due to her work injury, whether this exceeded the statutory seven-day waiting period, and when the Employer had ‘notice or knowledge of a claim for incapacity.’”

The Board found that the filing of a NOC on April 1 (well within fourteen days of March 28) was timely.

The Board also reminded us that the event which triggers an employer’s obligation to act (under Rule 1.1) is its notice or knowledge of a “claim for incapacity or death benefits for a work-related injury.” An employer’s knowledge of lost time is insufficient to trigger the rule—the employer must have knowledge of a claim for incapacity benefits. The ALJ found it significant that the Employer had notice of the claimed injury and that the Employee had lost several days of work but that this did not constitute knowledge of a “claim for incapacity benefits” which triggered an employer’s obligation to file a NOC. Because the seven-day waiting period had not yet expired, the Employer had no obligation to pay benefits. The Employer would not have been able to file a MOP, either accepting the claim or as a voluntary payment without prejudice, because it was not yet obligated to make any payment. Therefore, two of the three actions that an employer must choose under Rule 1.1 were unavailable to the Employer until March 28, 2016, when the employee told the Employer she was unable to work due to neck and upper back pain.

Ultimately, because the employee’s sporadic days out of work did not exceed the seven-day waiting period until March 28, 2016, and because the Employer had no notice or knowledge of a claim for incapacity until then, the filing of a NOC on April 1, 2016, was timely and there was no fourteen-day violation.

Appellate Division Revisits Res Judicata and Permanent Impairment in the Wake of Bailey v. City Of Lewiston

In Somers v. S.D. Warren Co., WCB App. Div. No. 17-38 (November 13, 2017), the Employee appealed a decision granting S.D. Warren’s Petition for Review and request to discontinue payments due to the expiration of the 520-week durational limit on incapacity benefits.

In a 2008 decree, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found the Employee’s knee condition resulted in 7% whole-body permanent impairment. The ALJ specifically declined to award any permanent impairment for the Employee’s adjustment disorder, a psychological sequela of the knee injury because, according to the § 312 Independent Medical Examiner, she did not sustain any permanent impairment due to that condition.

Litigation was commenced when S.D. Warren filed a Petition for Review seeking to terminate benefits based on the 520-week durational limit (under § 213 of the Maine Workers' Compensation Act, compensation for partial incapacity is payable for a maximum of 520 weeks, except in cases where an employee’s whole-person permanent impairment exceeds a given percentage [set by the Board]). On the other hand, the Employee argued that a “change in circumstances” since the prior decree—a worsening in her right knee and psychological conditions—justified reevaluation of her permanent impairment rating.

The ALJ found the Employee failed to establish a medical change in circumstances sufficient to overcome the res judicata effect of the 2008 decree. Thus, the ALJ found the impairment rating remained at 7%. The Employee filed a Motion for Further Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. In response, the ALJ did not alter the outcome, but issued an amended decree finding that any change in the Employee’s psychological condition was a change in degree, rather than kind.

On appeal, the Employee argued that the ALJ erred in finding that she failed to prove a change in circumstances necessary to overcome the res judicata effect of a 2008 decision establishing permanent impairment (valid decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board are subject to the rules of res judicata and are no longer subject to collateral attack after they become final. This point becomes particularly important, as explained below).

Before a decision was issued, the Law Court issued its decision in Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 2017 ME 160. In Bailey, the Law Court has held that permanent impairment and maximum medical improvement are not subject to reconsideration, even in the face of changed medical circumstances. The Appellate Division offered its interpretation of a seemingly unclear point in the wake of Bailey. Namely, exactly what happens when an employee seeks to increase permanent impairment after a decree establishing permanency. To be clear, Bailey addressed whether a downward revision of permanent impairment was possible. The Employee argued that the Bailey decision should be limited in its application to that set of facts. The Appellate Division disagreed:

"We disagree with this contention. The issue in Bailey, as framed by the Court, was whether the Workers’ Compensation Act allows the Board to revise a previously established impairment rating. It answered that question in the negative without distinguishing between upward and downward revisions. Therefore, pursuant to Bailey, the ALJ did not err when declining to revise the 7% impairment rating assigned to [the Employee’s] knee in the 2008 decree."

The Employee also argued that the Board should have increased her whole body impairment rating to account for added impairment related to her psychological sequela. However, in 2008 the ALJ had essentially found 0% psychological impairment and that figure cannot now be adjusted upward based on changed circumstances. 

The ALJ granted S.D. Warren’s Petition for Review and allowed it to cease paying partial incapacity benefits. 

Time will tell whether the case is appealed to the Law Court.

Workers’ Compensation Board Appellate Division to Review Decision Dealing with Application and Scope of § 327 Death Presumption

In Flaherty v. City of Portland, WCB Nos. 05032057 & 11036148 (June 22, 2017), Timothy Flaherty worked for years as a Portland firefighter. He was diagnosed with myelofibrosis, a rare cancer/disease of the bone marrow in August 2004. Mr. Flaherty retired from the fire department on February 28, 2005. He died from myelofibrosis on August 30, 2011.

Pending before the Board were two Petitions for Award – Occupational Disease Law, filed by Theresa Flaherty. The first petition was filed in Ms. Flaherty’s role as personal representative of the estate of Timothy Flaherty. The second petition was filed in her role as a dependent of Timothy Flaherty. Mrs. Flaherty alternatively claimed entitlement to incapacity and death benefits under the “traditional” (non-occupational) provisions of the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act. 

The petitions alleged that Mr. Flaherty's cancer was caused by occupational exposure related to his work as a firefighter. Mrs. Flaherty claimed entitlement to the benefit of the death presumption set forth in § 327 of the Act. The “death presumption” provides:

In any claim for compensation, when the employee has been killed or is physically or mentally unable to testify, there is a rebuttable presumption that the employee received a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment, that sufficient notice of the injury has been given and that the injury or death was not occasioned by the willful intention of the employee to injure or kill the employee or another. 39-A MRSA § 327. 

Among other things, the employer argued the presumption did not apply because Mr. Flaherty was not unable to testify during the period between his cancer diagnosis and date of death. However, the Board found Mr. Flaherty had no reason to file a claim or otherwise testify concerning his potential exposure until it was discovered that there was a potential causal connection between his cancer and the conditions of his employment. Thus, Mr. Flaherty was “unable to testify” as of the date that potential connection was discovered (June 2012). The Employer also argued that the presumption was inapplicable because Mr. Flaherty was not killed, nor did he die, during the course of his employment. However, the Board found nothing in the language of § 327 that limits the presumption to the period of employment. In addition, § 327 has often been applied to cases where the employee has left employment. 

The Board noted, “[w]hether the presumption arises is determined based on the evidence actually presented and ‘testimony which, within reasonable limits, may be conceived as potentially forthcoming from the employee were the employee available as a witness.’ Therefore, the presumption is properly invoked if the evidence presented to the hearing officer, combined with any facts to which Sullwold may reasonably have testified if he were alive, could rationally result in an award of compensation.” Sullwold v. Salvation Army, 2015 ME 4, ¶ 9, (citing Toomey v. City of Portland, 391 A.2d 325 (Me. 1978)). In this case, the Board found that, if alive, Mr. Flaherty could have provided testimony concerning the nature and scope of his exposure to benzene. The Board found that such testimony, in combination with expert testimony in the record, could rationally result in an award of compensation. Thus, it is presumed that Mr. Flaherty received a “personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and that sufficient notice has been given....” 39-A MRSA § 327.

The Board found Mr. Flaherty suffered a work-related injury in the nature of myelofibrosis as of February 28, 2005. The Petitions for Award – Occupational Disease Law filed by Ms. Flaherty in her role as personal representative and as widow were denied insofar as those petitions alleged claims under the Occupational Disease provision of the Act. Those petitions were granted, however, with respect to the claims made under the traditional Worker's Compensation Act. The employer was ordered to pay 500 weeks of benefits under § 215. 

The case is on appeal before the Workers’ Compensation Board Appellate Division. Among other things, at issue on appeal is the applicability of the death presumption, the burdens of production and proof under the presumption and the interplay between the Occupational Disease provisions in the Act and the traditional Act provisions.

Appellate Division Reverses Decision Supporting Causation Based on Speculative Medical Evidence

Generally speaking, the petitioning party bears the burden of persuasion to establish all elements of a claim on a more probably than not basis. Fernald v. Dexter Shoe Co., 670 A.3d 1382 (Me. 1996). Establishing the compensability of an injury through a Petition for Award is no exception. Rowe v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 428 A.2d 71 (Me. 1981). 

Proof of a causal relationship between an employee’s work and his or her injury is an essential element of a Petition for Award. Except where, “causation is clear and obvious to a reasonable [person] who had no medical training[,]” an employee must rely on the opinion of a qualified medical expert to meet his or her burden of proof on the issue of medical causation. See Brawn v. Bangor Tire Co., Me W.C.C. 97, 101 (Me. App. Div. 1983). The determination of causal connection is a question of fact. See Bruton v. City of Bath, 432 A.2d 390, 392 (Me. 1981). However, whether a party has or has not met their burden of proof is reviewable as a question of law. § 318. Further, “although slender evidence may be sufficient [to meet a burden of proof], it must be evidence, not speculation, surmise or conjecture,” Grant v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 394 A.2d 289 (Me. 1978). 

In Wickett v. University of Maine System, Me. W.C.B. No. 17-27 (App. Div. 2017), the employee fell down a set of stairs and developed low back and abdominal pain. The employee was subsequently diagnosed with a retroperitoneal mass. The employee filed Petitions for Award and for Payment seeking payment for medical bills and incapacity benefits. 

The employee introduced a report from her treating physician in which the physician stated, “I can only speculate,” finding a causal connection between the mass and the injury, and that the relationship between the injury and the diagnosis “certainly make this a likely possibility.” Based on these statements, the ALJ found the surgery to remove the mass related to the injury. 

The employee bore the burden of proof as the moving party. The Appellate Division stated that medical causation cannot be established on the basis of “speculation, surmise, or conjecture.” In this case, the physician was not able to state that there was a probable connection between the injury and the condition requiring surgery. The Appellate Division reversed and found that the employer was not responsible for the cost of surgery and for the disability that followed. The employee was merely entitled to the protection of the Act for the contusion injury.

The bottom line: Wickett reinforces that although slender evidence may be sufficient to meet one’s burden, it must not be speculation, surmise or conjecture. More than that is required for an employee to carry his or her burden to prove the compensability of an injury.