 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Southern Container Corp.12/8/2003
Reporter of Decisions
Argued: November 5, 2003
Lorraine Johnson, a former employee of Southern Container Corporation, appeals from the decision of a hearing officer of the Workers' Compensation Board (McCurry, HO) in which the hearing officer allowed Southern Container to set off a retirement benefit that Johnson currently receives from a previous employer, Weyerhaeuser, Inc., against Johnson's workers' compensation benefits from Southern Container. Johnson contends that the hearing officer erred in concluding that Southern Container was entitled to the setoff. We conclude that the record is devoid of any evidence justifying the setoff, and we therefore vacate the decision of the hearing officer.
I. BACKGROUND
Lorraine Johnson worked for Weyerhaeuser beginning in 1973, and, with one brief break, from 1977 through 1994. In 1994, Southern Container apparently purchased Weyerhaeuser's Westbrook facility. Johnson continued working at the facility in the same capacity and maintaining her seniority, until she was laid off by Southern Container in 2001.
Johnson receives workers' compensation benefits from Southern Container as a result of a work-related injury that occurred in February of 1999. After she was laid off by Southern Container in January of 2001, she applied for a pension from Weyerhaeuser. In determining her post-layoff workers' compensation benefit, the hearing officer concluded that Southern Container had purchased all the "assets and liabilities" of Weyerhaeuser and was therefore entitled to offset the pension benefits that Johnson was receiving from Weyerhaeuser. Johnson sought appellate review from this decision and we granted her petition. See 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (2001).
II. DISCUSSION
The Workers' Compensation Act requires the coordination of certain benefits, including retirement benefits. See 39-A M.R.S.A. § 221 (2001). Specifically, the Act provides that workers' compensation benefits must be reduced by retirement or pension payments when those payments are "received pursuant to a plan or program established or maintained by the same employer from whom benefits . . . are received," if the employee did not contribute to the retirement plan. 39-A M.R.S.A. § 221(3)(A)(4) (2001) (emphasis added).
Johnson is receiving retirement benefits, and the parties do not dispute that coordination of benefits, or more specifically, an offset against her workers' compensation benefits, would be required if that retirement plan fell within the description of section 221(3)(A)(4). Thus, if Southern Container had presented credible evidence that Johnson's retirement benefits are generated from a plan that had been established or maintained by Southern Container, the hearing officer would have correctly provided for an offset.
The evidence on which the hearing officer granted the offset did not, however, address that crucial question: whether the Weyerhaeuser pension had been established or maintained by Southern Container. Instead, the hearing officer found that because "Southern Container purchased Weyerhaeuser and all of its assets and liabilities; it is entitled to the setoff." That conclusion is legally flawed for two reasons.
First, although Southern Container's counsel represented that Southern Container and Weyerhaeuser "are successor companies," Southern Container offered no evidence regarding the nature of its succession to Weyerhaeuser's business, nor did it offer evidence regarding an asset and liability purchase. Second, it is not possible to discern from the record what is meant in this instance by successor corporation. The hearing officer apparently under
Page 1 2 Maine Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|