Opinion ID: 2258212
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: which party receives the benefit of the adjustment

Text: [¶ 10] Having determined that the hearing officer erred in failing to apply an inflation adjustment to the benefit related to the 25% of Dunson's incapacity attributable to her 1991 injury, we turn to the contention of the Housing Authority that it, and not the employee, is entitled to receive the benefit of that inflation adjustment pursuant to section 201(6). [¶ 11] What applicable average weekly wage to apply in a multiple injury case is an issue separate and distinct from that of apportionment, or of determining the applicable law. See Ray, 1997 ME 206, ¶¶ 4-5, 703 A.2d at 649-50. While an employee's benefits in a multiple injury case may be governed by several different statutes pursuant to section 201(6), see Cust, 2001 ME 29, ¶ 10, 766 A.2d at 568-69, those benefits must be calculated using one average weekly wage. In the present case, the hearing officer correctly concluded that all of Dunson's benefits are to be calculated based on her 1998 average weekly wage. [7] [¶ 12] While an insurer liable for an injury accepts the risk that an employee may suffer a subsequent injury in future employment, the insurer does not accept the risk of paying benefits for that injury based on a higher average weekly wage. See Johnson, 432 A.2d at 435-36. In Johnson, an earlier insurer was responsible to reimburse the most recent employer only for benefits calculated according to the average weekly wage at the time of that prior injury. Id. This reimbursement scheme between employers or insurers does not relieve the most recent employer of its obligation to pay benefits to the employee based on the controlling average weekly wage. Id. In some cases, therefore, the most recent insurer may pay more than its proportionate share, because the reimbursement it receives from a previous employer may be based on a lower average weekly wage. [8] [¶ 13] In the present case, the Housing Authority contends that, although it is responsible for 50% of the employee's incapacity, the amount it actually pays to the employee is greater than 50%, because the insurers of the prior employer, Shaw's, are responsible only for benefits based on the employee's average weekly wages at the time of the earlier injuries, which are lower than the employee's 1998 average weekly wage. Accordingly, the Housing Authority contends that section 201(6) should be interpreted so that it, as the most recent employer, receives the benefit of the inflation adjustment, thereby permitting it to pay a level of benefits that more accurately reflects its true proportion of liability. [9] We disagree. [¶ 14] The Housing Authority's interpretation of section 201(6) would increase the amount of reimbursement the most recent employer receives from previous employers, but would prevent the employee from receiving the full benefit of the law in effect at the time of her prior injuries. The Housing Authority's construction would, in effect, leave the employee with the same limited entitlement to benefits she would receive pursuant to our decision in Ray, 1997 ME 206, ¶ 4, 703 A.2d at 650, and would allow the most recent employer the benefit of more liberal entitlements that existed in earlier statutes, entitlements intended by the Legislature to benefit employees. [¶ 15] Contrary to the Housing Authority's construction of the statute, the purpose of section 201(6) was not to aid the most recent employer or insurer at the expense of the earlier employer in multiple injury cases, but rather to benefit injured employees to assure that those injured employees receive benefits for injuries based on the law in effect at the time of those injuries. Cust, 2001 ME 29, ¶ 11, 766 A.2d at 568-69. [¶ 16] Pursuant to sections 201(6) and 354, therefore, the Housing Authority is required to pay Dunson total incapacity benefits to be calculated according to the applicable total incapacity statutes for each date of injury and, in turn is entitled to reimbursement from the employers responsible for prior injuries, according to their respective obligations to pay under the law at the time of those injuries. In the present case, because 75% of Dunson's incapacity is attributable to injuries occurring after the effective date of title 39-A, see P.L.1991, ch. 885, § A-10, 75% of the total incapacity is governed by the current total incapacity statute, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 212. Dunson's benefits for the remaining 25% of her total incapacity must be calculated pursuant to former 39 M.R.S.A. § 54-B, repealed by P.L.1991, ch. 885, § A-7, which provided for an inflation adjustment for an employee receiving total incapacity benefits after a three-year waiting period. Any increase in benefits resulting from the application of the inflation adjustment must be paid to the employee. The entry is: The decision of the hearing officer of the Workers' Compensation Board is vacated. Remanded to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein.