Title: Toomey v. City of Portland

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

Tina E. TOOMEY v. CITY OF PORTLAND. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. January 26, 1979. Robert L. Hazard (orally), Portland, for plaintiff. Deborah Keefe, David A. Lourie (orally), William J. O'Brien, Jr., Portland, for defendant. *1030 Before McKUSICK, C. J., and POMEROY, WERNICK, DELAHANTY, GODFREY and NICHOLS, JJ. DELAHANTY, Justice. Petitioner's husband, a police officer employed by the City of Portland (City) died on November 22, 1972 as a result of an automobile accident. A Petition for Award of Compensation was filed on October 24, 1973. After a hearing, the Industrial Accident Commission, as it was then known,[1] found that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment and, by decree dated November 28, 1977, ordered the City to make weekly compensation payments of $81.14 to the petitioner.[2] The compensability of the injury was challenged on appeal; we rejected the challenge in Toomey v. City of Portland, Me., 391 A.2d 325 (1978).[3] The focus of this appeal concerns certain actions taken by the Commission in support of its decree under the authority purportedly granted to it by newly enacted 39 M.R. S.A. § 104-A which came into effect on October 24, 1977.[4] Subsection 1 of that statute provides in pertinent part that the employer must begin making compensation payments to the employee "within 10 days after any order or decision of the commission awarding compensation." The statute specifically provides that compensation payments "shall not be suspended thereafter in the event of appeal to the law court from such order or decision . . . ." Subsection 2 of the same statute provides that a maximum penalty of $25 per day "for each day of noncompliance [with the "pay-pending-appeal" provision] shall be assessed against the employer or the insurance carrier." After the ten-day waiting period provided in subsection 1 had expired, petitioner forwarded a written demand on the City asking that the compensation payments ordered by the Commission be begun. The City flatly refused to make any payments pending its appeal, then in progress, and subsequently sought declaratory relief in the Superior Court, Cumberland County. The complaint in that action asserted that *1031 1) Section 104-A ought not be applied retroactively to proceedings initiated before its effective date; 2) under Section 104-A, the Superior Court, and not the Commission, had jurisdiction to impose the penalty; 3) the power to impose penalties could not be delegated to an administrative agency consistent with the Separation of Powers provisions of the Constitution of the State of Maine or with federal due process; 4) the lack of any standards for the assessment of the penalty violated Article I of the Maine Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and 5) the Legislature's failure to provide any mechanism for the recovery of amounts paid to an employee by a successful appellant violated due process. On January 16, 1978, while the City's action for declaratory relief was still pending, petitioner filed a Motion to Invoke Penalty with the Industrial Accident Commission. The Motion alleged that the City had failed to make compensation payments pending appeal as required under Section 104-A and demanded that the Commission order the City to pay the maximum penalty of $25 per day. After a hearing on the Motion, the Commissioner entered a decree on March 9, 1978 ordering the City to pay $25 per day for each day of noncompliance with the Commission's order of November 28, 1977.[5] After obtaining a pro-forma decree from the Superior Court, Cumberland County, affirming the Commission's March decree, the City initiated this appeal challenging both the "pay-pending-appeal" and the penalty provisions of the statute on grounds substantially similar to those advanced in its complaint for declaratory relief.[6] Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the City began making weekly compensation payments to petitioner sometime after the Commission's March decree. It has never made any penalty payments. We decline to consider the validity of the "pay-pending-appeal" aspect of the statute finding the question to be moot; we do reach the question of the validity of the $25-per-day penalty, however, and sustain the City's appeal on the ground that the statute does not grant to the Commission the power to impose the penalty. Toomey v. City of Portland, supra, was decided on September 6, 1978. As of that date, the City's duty to conform to the obligations of the Commission's decree was finally established: it must make all weekly compensation payments retroactive to the time of the injury and including the tenmonth period between the entry of the Commission's decree in November of 1977 and our denial of the City's appeal in September of 1978. Since petitioner is entitled to the payments covering that period irrespective of the validity of the "pay-pending-appeal" portion of the statute, a determination of its validity would have no effect on the rights of either party. Accordingly, the question, having been rendered moot by our decision, will not be considered. Hazzard v. Westview Golf Club, Inc., Me., 217 A.2d 217 , 226 (1966). The soundness of the Commission's decree of March, 1978, assessing the maximum penalty of $25 per day against the City remains unaffected by our decision in Toomey. The penalty provision in Section 104-A is simply an enforcement device built into the statute in an effort to insure compliance on the part of employers with the "pay-pending-appeal" provision of Section 104-A. The validity of the $25-per-day penalty imposed by the Commission is therefore an independent issue cognizable on this appeal. *1032 Section 104-A contains no express legislative grant to the Commission of the power to impose penalties;[7] subsection 2 of the statute merely states that a penalty "shall be assessed" against recalcitrant employers. The lack of any express grant of power to the Commission is fatal to the petitioner's position, for we have consistently held that the Commission "has only the power that is expressly granted by statute." Anania v. City of Portland, Me., 394 A.2d 782 , 784 (1978); Levesque v. Levesque, Me., 363 A.2d 951 , 953 (1976); Joyce v. Conary, Me., 317 A.2d 794 , 795 (1974); Conner's Case, 121 Me. 37, 40, 115 A. 520, 521 (1921). Furthermore, to hold that Section 104-A empowers the Commission in effect to enforce its own decrees would mark a significant deviation from prior law. Until Section 104-A was enacted, it was clear that a party seeking to enforce a Commission decree was required first to obtain a Superior Court pro forma decree under Section 103. He could then pursue his remedies under Section 104 in Superior Court. We have on several occasions construed Maine's workers' compensation statutes as vesting the enforcement power in the Superior Court and not in the Commission. Matthews v. R. T. Allen & Sons, Inc., Me., 266 A.2d 240 , 242 (1970) ("It is the [pro forma decree] which gives enforceability to the Commission's decree. . . ."); Middleton's Case, 136 Me. 108, 109, 3 A.2d 434, 435 (1939) ("The Industrial Accident Commission . . . may not enforce its orders and decisions by process emanating from itself. The Legislature has indicated, as enforcing machinery, the entry [of a pro forma decree]."). See also Mullen v. Brown Homes, Inc., Me., 358 A.2d 557 , 560 (1976) ("The Commissioner has, . . . obviously, no equitable powers."); Waltz v. Boston & Rockland Transportation Co., 161 Me. 359, 368, 212 A.2d 431 , 436 (1965) ("Under our statute remedies in the Courts, including contempt proceedings, are open for recovery of overdue compensation payments."). Again, in view of the statute's silence on this question, we strongly doubt that the Legislature intended to depart from the established scheme, especially since the result of such a departure would be the needless fragmentation of the enforcement power between administrative and judicial bodies. In light of the already existing statutory framework, we construe the penalty provision of Section 104-A as an enforcement mechanism available to the Superior Court during the period between the procurement of a pro forma decree and final appellate disposition of the claim. Accordingly, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's Motion to Invoke Penalty, and its decree of March, 1978, was wholly void and of no effect.[8] The entry is: Appeal sustained. It is further ordered that the employer pay to the petitioner an allowance of $550.00 for her counsel fees plus her reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for this appeal. ARCHIBALD, J., did not sit.