MASON v. WADE & SEARWAY CONST. CO.
6/12/1995
The employee, Merrill Mason, appeals from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission denying his petition to fix payment of medical expenses after finding that those expenses were not causally related to a work-place injury. Mason contends that because the employer filed a memorandum of payment accepting responsibility for the incapacity to which the medical expenses were related, and failed to file a timely notice of controversy, thereby accepting liability for Mason's incapacity, it must also be liable for the medical costs directed toward ending that incapacity, 39 M.R.S.A. § 51-B(7) (1989). We agree, and vacate the Commissioner's decision.
On February 6, 1987, Mason suffered a work-related injury while employed by Wade & Searway Construction Company. He was incapacitated and received workers' compensation benefits for his time lost from work
Mason filed a petition for review of incapacity seeking an increase from one-third to full incapacity benefits, and also filed a petition to fix medical costs for the physical therapy and work-hardening program. Wade & Searway also filed a petition for review, contending that Mason's incapacity had ended. Finding that Mason had been restored to full work capacity as a result of the surgery and work-hardening treatment, the Commissioner ordered close-ended total incapacity benefits beginning on August 28, 1989, and ending on January 6, 1991. The Commissioner made the following finding:
t is clear that whatever was incapacitating Mr. Mason as of
August 29, 1989, the date [Wade & Searway] agreed to pay Mr.
Mason a partial benefit for his alleged incapacity, still
continued to be a contributing cause of his incapacity when he
filed his Petition for Review of Incapacity on June 28, 1990
seeking to increase that amount; since there is no other
work-related injury which I find causally related to any
incapacity suffered by Mr. Mason after August 29, 1989, I
reluctantly find that . . . [Wade & Searway] is responsible for
whatever percentage of incapacity Mr. Mason suffered subsequent
to August 29, 1989.
The Commissioner denied Mason's petition for the payment of the work-hardening program, however, concluding that " ince Mr. Mason's surgery was not causally related to any work injury, the work hardening program is not causally related to any work injury." Mason filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the Commissioner denied. The Appellate Division failed to resolve Mason's appeal prior to January 1, 1994, and we granted Mason's petition for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (Supp. 1994).
39 M.R.S.A. § 51-B(7) (1989) provides, in pertinent part:
If the employer, prior to making payments under subsection
3, controverts the claim to compensation, he shall file
with the commission, within 14 days after an event which gives
rise to the obligation to make payments under subsection 3, a
notice of controversy in a form prescribed by the commission. .
If, at the end of the 14-day period in subsection 3 . . . the
employer has not filed the notice required by this subsection,
he shall begin payments as required under [that] subsection .
In the case of compensation for incapacity under subsection 3,
he may cease payments and file with the commission a notice of
controversy, . . . no later than 44 days after an event which
gives rise to an obligation to make payments under subsection
3. Failure to file the required notice of controversy prior to
the expiration of the 44-day period, . . . constitutes
acceptance by the employer of the compensability of the i
Page 1 2 Maine Employee Leasing Services