McAdam v. United Parcel Service & Helmsman Management Services, Inc., 2001 ME 4

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated and remanded a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning Gary McAdam's benefits, average weekly wage, apportionment of liability, earning capacity, and discovery of prior medical records. The court held that liability involving a subsequent employer must be analyzed under 39-A M.R.S.A. § 201(4), that wage fluctuations could justify averaging under § 102(4), and that a one-time union signing bonus constituted an "other benefit" rather than wages. The court also held that the hearing officer abused discretion by denying UPS access to relevant medical information concerning prior shoulder injuries.

Holdings

1. When a subsequent employment results in a work-related injury that aggravates, accelerates, or combines with a preexisting condition, the subsequent employer may be responsible for a portion of the benefits under 39-A M.R.S.A. § 201(4); the subsequent injury need not independently cause the employee's disability.
2. The inclusion of McAdam's union-related fringe benefits in his average weekly wage was erroneous and had to be vacated.
3. The statutory requirement to average wages when they have generally varied from week to week applies without regard to the 200-day cutoff in § 102(4)(B), but ordinary week-to-week differences alone do not establish the required variance.
4. A one-time cash bonus unrelated to the employee's work, efforts, performance, employment goals, or an ongoing compensation scheme is an 'other benefit' under § 102(4)(H), rather than wages, and is subject to that subsection's limitations.
5. The record did not permit review of whether the varying-rate compensation award was based on actual incapacity or merely on McAdam's enrollment in vocational rehabilitation; the hearing officer's findings required clarification on remand.
6. The hearing officer abused his discretion by denying UPS's motion to compel relevant medical information concerning prior injuries to the same body part when Board rules authorized the employer to obtain that information.

Questions Presented

1. Whether liability for McAdam's disability could be apportioned to the City of Portland under 39-A M.R.S.A. § 201(4) without proof that the City's employment independently caused the disability.
2. Whether union-related fringe benefits were properly included in McAdam's average weekly wage.
3. Whether McAdam's wages were properly averaged under 39-A M.R.S.A. § 102(4)(A) and (B).
4. Whether McAdam's one-time $1,000 signing bonus was wages or an other benefit under 39-A M.R.S.A. § 102(4)(H).
5. Whether the hearing officer's determination of post-injury earning capacity and award of varying-rate compensation required clarification regarding McAdam's physical incapacity versus his participation in vocational rehabilitation.
6. Whether the hearing officer abused his discretion by denying enforcement of an order requiring McAdam to provide relevant medical records concerning prior shoulder injuries.

Disposition

vacated