Decided: March 21, 2017
Topic: Arising Out Of
For full text of the decision, visit:
http://www.maine.gov/wcb/Departments/appellate/2017decisions/17-11_Pickering_v._State_of_Maine,_Department_of_Conservation_3-21-17.pdf
Decided: March 3, 2017
Topic: Change in Medical Circumstances & Res Judicata
For full text of the decision, visit:
http://www.maine.gov/wcb/Departments/appellate/2017decisions/17-10_Stevens_v._L.L._Bean_3-6-17.pdf
Decided: February 28, 2017
Topic: 14-Day Violation & Agent Notice Requirements
For full text of the decision, visit:
Decided: February 28, 2017
Topic: Last Injurious Exposure & Proper Appellate Procedures
For full text of the decision, visit:
Decided: February 3, 2017
Topic: Permanent Impairment
This appellate decision presents an interesting look at burden shifting when permanent impairment [PI] is at issue. The panel felt the employee, Ms. Gowen, had met her burden to produce “some evidence to persuade a reasonable fact-finder of the existence of a genuine issue concerning the percentage of permanent impairment.” Ms. Gowen alleged there were additional neck and upper back symptoms related to her injury, which should then be included in her PI evaluation. The panel then goes on to discuss the shift to L.L. Bean’s ‘ultimate’ burden to prove Ms. Gowen’s PI does not exceed the threshold. However, since L.L. Bean did not address these newly alleged symptoms in her neck and upper back with the assessments, they were deemed to not have met their burden – one which is not clearly outlined in this decision, but seemingly remains at the more likely than not level of most issues within our system.
Decided: February 17, 2017
Topic: Appellate Review Standards
This recent decision by the Appellate Division reviews the role the panel plays when evaluating legal causation determinations of an underlying Administrative Law Judge. The Law Court has stated that this “task is not to determine whether the [ALJ] reached the only correct conclusion but rather, whether [the ALJ’s] conclusion is permissible on the record before us.” Comeau v. Maine Coastal Services, 449 A.2d 362, 369 (Me. 1982). Thus, while the panel members may not have made the same determination themselves, this alone does not allow them to overturn the decision.
Decided: January 23, 2017
Topic: Retirement Presumption
In this recent Appellate Division decision, the retirement presumption in §223 of the Workers’ Compensation Act was addressed. For those unfamiliar with this particular section of the Act, the retirement presumption stands for the premise that upon retirement from active employment, when receipt of retirement benefits begins, it is presumed a loss of earnings does not exist. The employee may rebut this presumption with a preponderance of evidence for total incapacity, but should they fail, entitlement to incapacity benefits will be denied.
Decided: January 6, 2017
Topic: Res Judicata
The first Appellate Division decision of 2017 echoes the cluster of res judicata cases from the end of 2016 with some additional interesting highlights regarding §312 opinions and contrary medical evidence.
