 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chmielewski v. J.C. Management11/28/2001
Reporter of Decisions
Argued: September 13, 2001
J.C. Management appeals from a decision of a hearing officer of the Workers' Compensation Board granting Frederick H. Chmielewski an inflation adjustment for his 1992 injury. According to the law applicable to a 1992 injury, an employee is entitled to an inflation adjustment for total, but not partial, incapacity benefits. See 39 M.R.S.A. §§ 54-B, 55-B (Supp. 1992), repealed and replaced by P.L. 1991, ch. 885, §§ A-7, A-8 (codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 212, 213, 214 (2001)). Purporting to correct a "clerical mistake" in a 1996 decree, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 318 (2001), the hearing officer found that Chmielewski was entitled to total incapacity benefits and, therefore, entitled to the inflation adjustment. We vacate the decision of the hearing officer.
There is no dispute that Chmielewski suffered a work-related gradual back injury in 1992, while employed by JCM. JCM voluntarily accepted liability for the injury and paid short-term total incapacity benefits. In 1994 JCM filed a petition for review with the Board, contending that Chmielewski's incapacity had diminished or ended. In 1996 a hearing officer denied JCM's petition, stating, in part:
I find, based on the employee's medical condition and restrictions, in light of his age, education, demeanor, training skills and work experience that he continues to be totally incapacitated. This incapacity is due to a combination of the work-related injury and the employee's intrinsic limitations rather than the state of the labor market in his community. The PETITION FOR REVIEW OF INCAPACITY is denied and the insurer ordered to continue payment commensurate with 100% partial incapacity benefits.
In 1999 Chmielewski sought an inflation adjustment "pursuant to former Section 54-B [total incapacity] of the Act." Concluding that the apparent award of "100% partial incapacity benefits" in the 1996 decree was a "clerical mistake" pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 318, the hearing officer agreed and stated:
It is apparent . . . that the hearing officer [in 1996] found that the employee was unable to do any type of remunerative work. She then inconsistently finds that the employee is entitled to 100 percent partial incapacity benefits. The standard to be applied is that if an employee is unable to find work because of a combination of his physical incapacity caused by the injury and educational and vocational background that he is entitled to . . . benefits for total incapacity . . . . Title 39 M.R.S.A. § 54-B(1). See also Adams v. Mt. Blue Health Ctr., [1999 ME 105, 4,] 735 A.2d 478, 479.
The hearing officer rejected JCM's argument that the award of 100% partial incapacity is res judicata, stating:
[The 1996 decision] is inconsistent and is ambiguous. The ambiguous paragraph . . . where the hearing officer finds all the necessary conditions for an award of total incapacity under Section 54-B, but nonetheless indicates that she is awarding payments commensurate with 100 percent partial incapacity benefits. This obviously makes no sense if one is to read the whole paragraph. [This] is not a case where the prior hearing officer found that the employee had a partial work capacity, but was able to find no work in the community or, given the date of this statute, within the state of Maine as a whole which would justify an award of 100 percent partial incapacity benefits. In this particular case, the finding is that the employee is totally disabled from a physical condition and a locational standpoint regardless of any work search may or may not have done. This entitles the employee to total benefits under former Section 54-B.
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.
|
|