Case Name: William HARVIE v. BATH IRON WORKS CORP., et al.; Daniel V. VENTRY, Jr. v. BATH IRON WORKS CORP., et al.
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1989-07-14
Citations: 561 A.2d 1023
Docket Number: 
Parties: William HARVIE v. BATH IRON WORKS CORP., et al. Daniel V. VENTRY, Jr. v. BATH IRON WORKS CORP., et al.
Judges: Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 561
Pages: 1023–1027

Head Matter:
William HARVIE v. BATH IRON WORKS CORP., et al. Daniel V. VENTRY, Jr. v. BATH IRON WORKS CORP., et al.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Argued March 16, 1989.
Decided July 14, 1989.
Jonathan Reitman (orally), Janmarie Toker (orally), McTeague, Higbee, Libner, MacAdam & Case, Topsham, for plaintiffs.
Eve Cimmet (orally), Richardson & Troubh, Stephen Moriarty (orally), Robert Bower, Norman, Hanson & Detroy, Portland, for defendant.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.

Opinion:
COLLINS, Justice.
In a consolidated appeal, William Harvie and Daniel Ventry challenge the rulings of the Appellate Division of the Workers' Compensation Commission denying them recovery for injuries sustained at work. Because the time lapse of more than two years from the injuries and last payment to the time the claims were made bars both claims under 39 M.R.S.A. § 95 (Pamph. 1988), we affirm the Appellate Division.
Both men were injured in separate incidents at the Bath Iron Works in 1979. Ventry slipped on pipes and twisted his ankle. He was voluntarily paid benefits without the filing of any petition or agreement. The last payment was made in February of 1980. In September of 1984 Ven-try received prescription Motrin from the first aid office at the Iron Works for swelling in the same ankle. The hearing commissioner determined that the Motrin constituted a payment that revived Ventry's claim for compensation. The Appellate Division agreed that the Motrin constituted a payment, but reversed because it found that the almost five years between the last payment in 1980 and the administration of Motrin in 1984 extinguished Ventry's claim.
Harvie injured his knees when he fell from a height of between three and five feet in March of 1979. He was seen by doctors in June and July of 1979, and again in April of 1984 after experiencing "aching, swelling, and minor dull pain." After receiving a second opinion, Harvie underwent arthroscopic surgery in 1985. The hearing commissioner found that Harvie's claim filed in 1985 was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Because the Appellate Division is an intermediate tribunal the decision of the hearing commissioner is reviewed directly for errors of law. See Lagasse v. Hannaford Brothers Company, 497 A.2d 1112, 1119 (Me.1985). The Maine statute provides:
Any employee's claim for compensation under this Act shall be barred unless any agreement or a petition as provided in section 94 shall be filed within two years after the date of the injury, or, if the employee is paid by the employer or the insurer, without filing of any petition or agreement, within two years of any payment by such employer or insurer for benefits otherwise required by this Act.
39 M.R.S.A. § 95. Neither man claims to fall within the exceptions to this statute of limitations. Instead each suggests that the 1984 medical attention revived claims otherwise barred by the statute of limitations.
As originally enacted, the provisions in question required a worker to file for compensation within two years of the date of injury and, under any circumstances, within ten years of the date of accident. P.L. 1965, ch. 408, § 9. The ten year extension was quickly modified to permit filing a petition, in certain circumstances, ten years after the date of last payment. P.L.1965, ch. 489, § 8.
This ten year statute of limitations provided an outside limit in cases that were recognized exceptions to the two year limit. In each of its incarnations, these exceptions were physical or mental incapacity, or mistake of fact as to the cause and nature of the injury. The statute also provided an additional year for filing in the case of death.
In 1975, the two year limit itself was amended to allow recovery within two years of the final payment. The modification of the statute in 1975 addressed the problems posed by the worker whose treatment continued beyond that two year period, but who did not fall into the exceptions listed in the statute. The worker's continued treatment, under the 1975 revision, relieved him or her of the absolute requirement of filing a claim within two years of injury.
Under Harvie's and Ventry's interpretation of that amendment, a subsequent payment revives a stale claim even though made after the two year period of limitation expires. This two year limitation period, however, is extended only when payments are "required by this Act." 39 M.R. S.A. § 95. Once that two year period has expired, the claim is barred and no payment to Ventry or Harvie was required by the Act. Therefore, any payment by Bath Iron Works once the statute expired could not revive the claim. Any other interpretation would multiply the exceptions to the statute of limitations which, since the statute was first adopted, have been clearly and particularly stated.
The policy behind a statute of limitations is to reconcile the interests of an injured party with those of the party responsible for compensation. Pino v. Maplewood Packing Co., 375 A.2d 534 (Me.1977). While it is true that payments in compensation for an injury toll the statute of limitations, it is because the employer, responsible for compensation, has notice of the injury that this tolling occurs. Pottle v. Bath Iron Works, 551 A.2d 112 (Me.1988). The employer is under no duty to prove prejudice from failure to file. 3 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law § 78.20, at 15-106 (1989). Instead, the statute of limitations presumes that delay in filing results in the "enhanced difficulty of preparing a defense." Id. at 15-107.
The Iron Works argues, in Ventry's case, that the prescription Motrin issued by the first aid office does not constitute a payment under the Act. Because we believe both claims are barred by the statute of limitations, we do not rule on this issue.
The entry is:
Judgments affirmed.
McKUSICK, C.J., and WATHEN and CLIFFORD, JJ., concurring.
. The rule provides exceptions in case of "physical or mental incapacity . and mistake of fact as to the cause and nature of the injury." One year tolling is also allowed in the case of the death of an employee.