Miller v. Spinnaker Coating, 2011 ME 79

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board decision reducing Peter Miller's partial incapacity benefits by 25% after the statutory durational limit expired for the portion attributable to his 1992 injury. The court held that Maine law required apportionment by injury and application of the law in effect at the time of each injury, and that the reduction was not barred by the multiple-injury payment and subrogation provisions.

Holdings

1. In a multiple-injury workers' compensation case, 39-A M.R.S. § 201(6) requires the court or hearing officer to apportion the employee's disability among the injuries and apply the law in effect when each injury occurred. Because the law applicable to Miller's 1992 injury imposed a 520-week limit and Miller had received all benefits attributable to that injury, the benefit could be reduced by the 25% portion attributable to the expired injury.
2. The 2009 amendment to 39-A M.R.S. § 354(3) prohibits a reduction in benefits based on a prior work-related injury that was the subject of an approved lump-sum settlement, but it does not prohibit a reduction when weekly benefits attributable to a prior injury have been fully paid under the applicable statutory durational limit.
3. Dunson does not require the most recent employer or insurer to continue paying the portion of a benefit attributable to a prior injury after the statutory limit for that prior injury has expired.

Questions Presented

1. Whether, under 39-A M.R.S. § 201(6) and the law applicable to Miller's 1992 injury, the benefit attributable to that injury could be discontinued after the statutory 520-week durational limit expired.
2. Whether 39-A M.R.S. § 354(3), the 2009 amendment concerning prior lump-sum settlements, or general apportionment principles required Spinnaker to continue paying the entire 65% partial incapacity benefit despite expiration of the 1992 injury's durational limit.
3. Whether Dunson v. South Portland Housing Authority required the most recent insurer to absorb the reduction in benefits attributable to the expired prior injury.

Disposition

affirmed