Date: October 5, 2016

Topic: Weight and reliance afforded to §312 Independent Medical Examiner opinions

Read the full text: Carol J. Bouchard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Date: 10/22/2015

Summary:
(1) The “operative event” for the application of §217(8) (the voc rehab section providing presumption of 100% incapacity) is the filing of theApplication for Employment Rehabilitation, NOT the date of injury

(2) The §217(8) presumption of 100% incapacity is rebuttable by a  showing on the part of the employer that, on a more likely than not basis, work is available to an employee who is participating in a board-ordered rehabilitation plan.

Read the full text of Daniel Axelsen v. Interstate Brands Corp.

Date: 9/28/15
Summary: Panel upholds Stovall’s finding that EE failed to establish gradual injury on a comparative risk analysis. Stovall based his decision on the testimony of witnesses that the EE’s job was largely sedentary and on Dr. Pavlak’s conclusion that the condition was the natural progression of the EE’s preexisting back problem.

Read the full text of Denise J. Dunn v. Sunrise Senior Living

Date: 9/3/15
Summary: EE is a truck driver whose restrictions following a cervical surgery for an established work injury preclude a return to work that involves manipulating 75-100 lb load covers. HO Elwin found no ongoing incapacity based on Dr. Mesrobian’s opinion that, due to the EE’s pre-existing condition, he would have placed the same restrictions on the EE prior to his work injury as are in place post-surgery.

The panel (Collier, Hirtle, & Knopf) vacated the finding of no partial incapacity, citing St. Amand v. Edwards Manufacturing Co., standing for the proposition that even a negligible work restriction establishes a degree of partial disability, which may establish partial earning incapacity depending on what the employee is able to earn within the restrictions. 386 A.2d 730 (Me. 1978). The panel remanded for further findings regarding earning capacity.

Read the full text of Daniel Cross v. LLP Transport, LLC

Date: 7/31/15
Summary: Appellate Division affirms HO Goodnough’s decision finding that under Section 217 an employer cannot be held liable for costs incurred by the employee (in this case college tuition) before the development of an employment rehabilitation plan.

Read the full text of Helena Deroche v. Ethan Allen

Date: 4/17/15
Summary: Panel affirms HO Stovall’s decision in which he found an employer witness to be more credible than the employee.

Read the full text of Tina Cote v. Community Partners

Date: 6/4/15
Summary: Employer unsuccessful attempting to overturn a finding on notice on a “no rational foundation” argument.

Read the full text of Jessica Briggs v. H&K Stevens, Inc.

Date: 6/30/15
Summary: Panel affirms HO Elwin’s denial of petition for discrimination. Employer’s testimony that employee’s history of three work injuries (including two over a six-month period) constituted 20% of the reason for his termination did not, as the employee claimed, establish discrimination as a matter of law. The panel found that this testimony formed an adequate basis for the hearing officer to conclude that the employee was fired for his cavalier attitude about safety, rather than for filing workers’ compensation claims.

Read the full text of Philip A. Hebert v. Irving Lumber

The Maine Workers’ Compensation Board Appellate Division’s recent decision in Gregory Traussi v. B&G Foods, Inc. could spell trouble for employers and insurers if the decision is not reversed on appeal.