Source: https://www.tuckerlawmaine.com/posts/page/19/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:34:47+00:00

Document:
Bridgeman v. S.D. Warren Company, et al.
In this case (and its companion case, Mitchell v. UPS), the Law Court was asked to rule on the validity of Board Rule Chapter 1(1), commonly referred to as the 14-day rule. Under that rule, an employer who fails to pay or controvert a claim for incapacity benefits within 14 days of receipt of the claim violates the rule. The employer then must pay incapacity benefits from the date of incapacity through the date the violation is cured (by paying accrued benefits and filing a Notice of Controversy).
The employer argued that the rule conflicts with Section 205 of the Workers’ Compensation Act which provides a $50.00 per day penalty for claims not disputed or paid within 44 days. The employer also argued that when, as here, the employee presents his initial claim by way of petition, no response is required under Section 307(3) of the Act. Finally, the employer argued that the rule is contrary to the intent of the Act by forcing employers to immediately dispute claims rather than risking a rule violation, creating more litigation and delaying payment of valid claims.
The Law Court concluded that the Workers’ Compensation Board enjoys broad rule-making authority and that the 14-day rule does not directly conflict with the language of the Act. The Court found that the rule encourages employers to quickly pay or controvert a claim, resulting in faster disposition. However, the Court did not respond to the employer’s argument that no response to a petition is required under Section 307(3).
The Court also ruled that when a 14-day violation has been established, the employee is due benefits not from the date of his petition, but from the date of incapacity. Enforcement of the 14-day violation under these circumstances may have a huge financial impact on insurers and employers.
As a result of this decision, a safer route for insurers when the facts and initial investigation may not support compensability is to file Notices of Controversy to avoid a 14-day rule violation, then complete their investigation of the claim and decide whether or not to pay benefits.
View complete text of Bridgeman v. S.D. Warren Company, et al.
Lydon v. Sprinkler Services, et al.
M.R.S.A. §312(2) designation of a §312 independent medical examiner.
opinion and denied the employee’s petitions.
three provisions for disqualification of an examiner for §312 purposes.
during the previous fifty-two weeks.” See 39-A M.R.S.A. §312.
the statute and therefore exceeded Board authority.
deferred to the Board’s construction of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
View complete text of Lydon v. Sprinkler Services, et al.
Little v. Knowlton Machine Company, et al.
In a case involving issues similar to those in the D’Amato v. S.D. Warren Co. case, the Law Court was presented with questions regarding the authority of a specific Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer at issue was John McCurry. The hearing at issue in the appeal took place after the expiration of Hearing Officer McCurry’s term of office. In the D’Amato case Hearing Officer Johnson was afforded de facto authority from the Workers’ Compensation Board to decide cases presented by hearing prior to the expiration of her term. In the subject case, Hearing Officer McCurry’s expired on December 31, 2002 and the hearing was held subsequent to that date. The employer/insurer objected to Hearing Officer McCurry hearing the case although the objection was not within the time limits established by the Board for objections.
The Law Court found that even though the objection was late, because there was uncertainty by the Board as to Hearing Officer McCurry’s status, he did not retain de facto authority to decide the subject matter. Hearing Officer McCurry’s decision was reversed and remanded.
View complete text of Little v. Knowlton Machine Company, et al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §312
 §312
 §312
 §312
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.