Opinion ID: 1948815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bona Fide Offer of Employment

Text: [¶ 11] R.C. Moore contends that Avramovic refused a bona fide offer of reasonable employment, and therefore is no longer entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1)(A). An employee who receives a bona fide offer of reasonable employment from the previous employer or another employer, and who refuses that employment without good and reasonable cause is not entitled to receive wage loss benefits during the period of refusal. 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1)(A). [1] We have identified two purposes underlying section 214(1)(A): (1) to provide an opportunity for employers to mitigate workers' compensation benefits by offering injured employees reinstatement employment, and (2) to encourage injured employees to return to work. Thompson v. Earle W. Noyes & Sons, Inc., 2007 ME 143, ¶ 7, 935 A.2d 663, 666. Accordingly, once the employer makes a bona fide offer of reasonable employment, the employee is subject to a reciprocal obligation to accept that offer, absent good and reasonable cause for refusal. Id. [¶ 12] Cases governed by section 214(1)(A) are analyzed under a two-part test in which we consider: (1) whether the offered employment was reasonable pursuant to the statutory criteria in section 214(5), and if so, (2) whether the employee had good and reasonable cause to refuse the employment. Thompson v. Claw Island Foods, 1998 ME 101, ¶¶ 7, 8, 713 A.2d 316, 318. [¶ 13] The hearing officer found that the job offered to Avramovic was not a bona fide offer of reasonable employment because the employer did not prove that the position offered is actually available in the competitive labor market. The hearing officer found that the employer presented insufficient evidence about EDI, including the type of business it is; how long it has been in operation; how many employees it has hired through Expediter; whether they keep their jobs beyond the training period; and the type of work the employee would be hired to perform. The hearing officer stated: Without some more specific information about his duties and how they relate to the company's business and the broader market I am unable to conclude that it is more likely than not that this specific job offer is a `bona fide offer of reasonable employment' as required by 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1)(A). [¶ 14] Whether a burden of proof has been satisfied depends ultimately on the persuasiveness of evidence.... Pomerleau v. United Parcel Serv., 464 A.2d 206, 208 (Me.1983). Our role on appeal is limited to assuring that a hearing officer's factual findings are supported by competent evidence, that [the] decision involved no misconception of applicable law and that the application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor without rational foundation. Id. at 209. The hearing officer reasonably found that R.C. Moore failed to meet its burden of proof on the issue of an offer of reasonable employment. The decision on the reasonable offer of employment issue is affirmed.