Summary:
Appellate Division vacates decree finding that tattoo artists who rented booth space were employees of the parlor owner.

View complete text of Workers’ Compensation Board Abuse Investigation Unit v. Donald J. Price, Jr. d/b/a Blind Faith Tattoos

Summary:
Panel finds that HO Goodnough did not err in finding that the EE was entitled to permanent impairment benefits under the former §56-B despite the fact that the Board had previously determined that the effects of the injury had ended. The Appellate Division focused its decision on whether the injury continued to produce incapacity and failed to address the employer’s argument that the Board had twice found the effects of the work injury ended.

View complete text of Stuart Seekins v. International Paper Co.

Summary:

In this case the issue was whether the EE’s ongoing symptoms were the continuing result of a work injury established by prior decree. Dr. Pier, in a 207, disagreed with an opinion by Dr. Phillips regarding the nature of the EE’s underlying condition that had been adopted by the prior decree. However, since Dr. Pier “entertained the validity” of Dr. Phillips’ opinions in determining whether the effects of the injury had ended, the panel found that it was not legal error for the HO to adopt Dr. Pier’s opinion.

However, the panel did remand the matter to the Board for further findings because the employer failed to file petitions on all of the dates of injury that were addressed by the prior decree. This is a reminder of the importance of filing petitions addressing all of the relevant dates of injury involved in a claim.

View complete text of Cheryl Jackson v. Pratt-Abbott Cleaners

Summary:

The Appellate Division affirmed a hearing officer’s decision imposing upon a construction company the obligation to secure the payment of compensation for all of its employees, despite the fact that some of the employees were predetermined to be independent contractors by the Board. The Appellate Division also concluded that there was competent evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding that certain of the individuals predetermined to be independent contractors were, in fact, employees. However, the Board found that, because the penalty provision of section 105–A(3) is ambiguous, a penalty cannot be imposed on an employer in the construction industry, particularly in a case where a predetermination of independent contractor status has been made.

View complete text of Nate Holyoke Builders, et al. v. WCB Abuse Investigation Unit

Summary:

H.O. Pelletier neither misconstrued the law nor applied it arbitrarily when he decided that the employer terminated the employee due to its good faith belief that he was being dishonest, rather than for asserting a claim under the Act.

View complete text of Bellefleur v. Fraser Paper

Summary:

Fine for failure to obtain workers’ compensation insurance upheld. Under Sec. 102(13) there was competent evidence for the hearing officer to find that drivers hired by a shuttle and courier service were employees and not independent contractors, as they did not own or lease their vehicles, did not maintain the vehicles, and did not incur operating expenses.

View complete text of WCB AIU v. Eric Ring d/b/a Lincoln Shuttle

Summary:

In this case addressing appeals to the newly constituted Appellate Division, the hearing officer issued a decree on May 4, 2012 and additional findings and conclusions on August 6, 2012. On a request for reconsideration, the hearing officer reported the case to the Board, which voted to deny a request for review on September 11, 2012. An appeal to the Law Court followed.

On August 2, 2012, the Law Court, enacting the Maine Legislature’s PL 2011, amended Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 23 stating that decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board would be subject to appeal to the Appellate Division for decisions published on or after September 1, 2012.

In the present case, the Court found that although the initial decree and the subsequent findings were published before September 1, 2012, there still remained a post-decision referral to the Board which was pending as of September 1, 2012. Therefore, the Court found that the appeal was properly before the Appellate Division and not before the Law Court.

The impact of this decision on cases currently in litigation is limited as all Board decisions issued on or after September 1, 2012 are clearly before the Appellate Division. Discretionary appeals to the Law Court are only available after appellate review by the Appellate Division.

View complete text of Estate of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army, et al.