Title: Davis v. Scott Paper Co.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

Decided April 2, 1986. McTeague, Higbee & Libner, Jeffrey Cohen, (orally), Brunswick, for plaintiff. Richardson, Tyler & Troubh, Eve Cimmet, (orally), Portland, for defendant. *582 Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN and GLASSMAN, JJ. NICHOLS, Justice. On this appeal we are called upon to interpret a unique provision of Maine's Workers' Compensation Act authorizing agreements of trial work periods, 39 M.R. S.A. § 100-A (Pamph.1985),[1] as the Employer, Scott Paper Company, challenges an order of the Commission's Appellate Division, to pay compensation to its Employee, Russell K. Davis, after the completion of work pursuant to such an agreement. We reject the Employer's argument that completion of the trial work agreement terminated its obligation under an earlier open-ended agreement to pay compensation. After the Employee sustained an injury in the course of his employment in January, 1983, the Employer and Employee entered into an open-ended agreement to pay compensation for total disability, which agreement the Commission approved March 2, 1983. On May 5, 1983, the parties entered into a trial work agreement covering the period from May 9, 1983, through August 7, 1983. The Commission approved this agreement September 21, 1983. The Employee returned to work May 9, 1983, and continued to work until September 13, 1983, during which time he did not receive workers' compensation. On the latter date the Employee was forced to discontinue work due to a recurrence of the earlier disability, and he was unable to work again until November 6, 1983. The Employer refused to pay compensation during this subsequent period of incapacity, claiming that both prior agreements had expired. When the Commission granted the Employee's motion to compel payment of total disability benefits under the open-ended agreement for the period from September 13 through November 5, 1983, the Employer appealed to the Appellate Division, thus raising the novel issue of whether the Employee's completion of the trial work period automatically terminated the Employer's obligation under a prior compensation agreement to pay compensation during a subsequent period of disability. When the Appellate Division affirmed, the Employer sought appellate review. Our statute does not address the effect of an employee's working beyond the three-month trial period when there is an open-ended compensation agreement in effect at the time of entering the trial work agreement. The Employee urges that termination of benefits must follow the requirements of 39 M.R.S.A. § 100(4).[2] *583 In resolving this issue we must consider the whole statutory scheme of which the section at issue forms a part so that a harmonious result, presumably the intent of the Legislature, may be achieved. See Brennan v. Johnson, 391 A.2d 337 , 340 (Me.1978); In Re Belgrade Shores, Inc., 359 A.2d 59 , 61 (Me.1976). The Workers' Compensation Act does not state that the completion of a trial work agreement terminates an employer's obligation to pay compensation under an openended agreement, yet two specific methods of terminating the obligation to pay compensation are available to an employer. Under 39 M.R.S.A. § 100 either the employer or the employee may file a petition for review, and the employer may suspend payments so long as his petition is accompanied by a certificate stating that the employee has resumed work. Alternatively, the employer may file an agreement to discontinuance of compensation form signed by the employee. See Maine Workers' Compensation Rules and Regulations, 90-351 C.M.R. 2.7 (1984) (now C.M.R. 4.7 (1985)). Under either of these methods the termination of benefits is subject to explicit employee concurrence or a subsequent hearing and determination of entitlement. This procedural framework shows us that the Legislature intended that an employee should receive specific notice before termination of his right to receive compensation. To read a trial work agreement as terminating a prior open-ended compensation agreement would not further this legislative intent because it would allow for termination of compensation without a specific, clear notice to the employee. It would also permit termination of compensation as a result of unilateral action by the employer without the subsequent approval of the Commission as required in each of the two specified methods of termination. Significantly section 100-A provides for a "suspension" rather than a "termination" of the compensation agreement, thereby indicating the temporary nature of the hiatus in payments.[3] Clearly, the Legislature wants specific notice to an employee before he loses or surrenders his right to compensation. This legislative purpose is better fulfilled by placing the burden on the employer to move expressly for termination of benefits upon completion of the trial work period or to use either of the other two statutory methods of termination available to it rather than by allowing for termination by default. The latter would place the burden on the employee to petition for continued compensation. The goal of encouraging employees to resume work as soon as is reasonable after sustaining an injury is better achieved by limiting the adverse results of attempting to return to work. *584 In most instances the employee will be willing to sign an agreement to discontinuance of compensation if the trial work period is successful. If he should not cooperate, the simple filing of a petition certifying the employee's return to work would allow the employer to suspend payments. Even if the employer, as here, fails to follow either one of these procedures, there is a set-off of wages paid against compensation payments due as a result of the failure to terminate the open-ended agreement. The rule adopted by the Commission in the case before us does not place an undue burden on employers and will further the legislative purpose of insuring a speedy, inexpensive, and final settlement of claims. See Anania v. City of Portland, 394 A.2d 782 , 784 (Me.1978). The entry is: Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that the Employer pay to the Employee $550 for his counsel fees plus his reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for this appeal. All concurring.