Opinion ID: 2559428
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Burdens of Production and Proof

Text: [¶ 17] The judicial process imposes burdens of production of evidence and proof so that trial courts and juries will have a body of evidence to draw from and a standard to apply when determining facts and applying the applicable law to those facts. In this declaratory judgment action, the Trust bore the burdens of production and proof to establish the extent of its lien rights under 39-A M.R.S. § 107. As we have previously explained, In a declaratory judgment action, the allocation of the burden of proof ... must be determined by reference to the substantive gravamen of the complaint. Markley v. Semle, 1998 ME 145, ¶ 5, 713 A.2d 945, 947 (quotation marks omitted). Here, the Trust, as the party affirmatively seeking the protection of the lien statute, properly bore the burden of proof. See id. [¶ 18] Because the Trust did not establish the amount of the future liability from which it had been relieved, it failed in its burden of proof, unless, as McKeeman recognized, the court also finds that that amount cannot be reasonably calculated. A determination as to an employee's entitlement to benefits into the futurewhether by the parties' agreement, a decision of the Board, or a determination by the court based upon an adequate evidentiary recordis a necessary step to prove the total amount of a workers' compensation lien pursuant to the McKeeman analysis. The Trust recognized this, asserting before the court that [i]t is not possible to make a determination ... without resolving all of the issues that are currently pending before the Board and that the Workers' Compensation Board, not the courts, is the appropriate forum for resolution of those issues. The Trust was prevented, however, from satisfying its burdens of production and proof in this case, not because it was impractical to obtain a decision of the Board, but because the Board proceeding was stayed pending the court's determination of this lien action. The process that resulted from these events had the effect of putting the proverbial cart before the horse. [¶ 19] As a matter of both judicial economy and basic necessity, we hold that when: (1) the parties disagree as to an employee's entitlement to future benefits; (2) there has been no determination of that question by the Board; and (3) the extent of future liability cannot readily be determined by the court on the record before it, it is essential that the parties obtain a decision from the Board. In such cases, the court should postpone a final determination of the lien claim and require the parties to obtain a decision from the Board, absent good cause not to require one. [7] There is no good cause apparent from the record in this case.