Tracy v. Hershey Creamery Company11/23/1998
or "specific loss" benefits are not new. Maine has expressly provided some form of schedule benefits since the original enactment of the Workers' Compensation Act in 1915. P.L. 1915, ch. 295, § 14; see e.g., Estabrook v. Stewart Read Co., 129 Me. 178, 186, 151 A. 141, 145 (1930). Prior to 1987, the former Act provided 100 weeks of total incapacity benefits " or the loss of an eye, or the reduction of the sight of an eye, with glasses, to 1/10 of the normal vision. . . ." See, e.g., 39 M.R.S.A. § 56 (Pamph. 1986), repealed by P.L. 1987, ch. 559, Pt. B, § 33. Prior to 1965, specific loss benefits were intended to compensate employees for loss of earning capacity. See Cook, 155 Me. at 311, 154 A.2d at 171 ("The theory of the scheduled injuries is that the claimant 'has sustained a distinct loss of earning power in the near or not remote future,'" quoting Clark's Case, 120 Me. 133, 137, 113 A. 51, 52 (1921)).
In 1965 the Legislature amended the specific loss statute to permit the award of schedule benefits "in addition to" incapacity benefits. P.L. 1965, ch. 408, § 5. See, e.g., 39 M.R.S.A. § 56 (Pamph. 1986), repealed and replaced by P.L. 1987, ch. 559, Pt. B, § 31. Following the 1965 amendment, schedule "permanent impairment" benefits were no longer intended as compensation for lost earning capacity, or loss of "industrial use," but as compensation for lost bodily function. See, e.g., Delorge v. NKL Tanning, Inc., 578 A.2d 1173, 1174 (Me. 1990) (" he award for permanent impairment has no relation to work incapacity or wage replacement. Rather it is based on the loss of function of part of the body due to work-related injury.").
In 1992 the Legislature abolished specific loss permanent impairment benefits based on loss of bodily function. Maine Workers' Compensation Act of 1992, P.L. 1991, ch. 885. Today, the benefits provided by section 212(1) are expressly intended to compensate employees for loss of earning capacity. See Clark v. International Paper Co., 638 A.2d 65, 67 (Me. 1994). The benefits provided by section 212(2) and (3) are intended to compensate employees for catastrophic injuries. See 39-A M.R.S.A. § 221(1). While the purpose of benefits pursuant to the new Act is primarily to compensate employees for loss of earnings, the specific loss provisions also recognize "human factors substantially in addition to the wage loss concept" that are attendant with the traumatic loss of a body part or vision resulting from a work-related injury. It is in this context that we address the issue presented here.
III. Discussion
We first address whether Tracy's temporary vision loss prior to medical intervention was sufficient to trigger his employer's obligation to pay specific loss benefits. The legislative history is instructive. Pursuant to the former Act, when specific loss benefits were intended as compensation for permanent impairment, the determination of vision loss was made at the point of "maximum medical improvement." See, e.g., 39 M.R.S.A. § 56 (Pamph. 1986), repealed and replaced by P.L. 1987, ch. 559, Pt. B, § 31. Maximum medical improvement was defined as "the date after which further recovery and further restoration of function can no longer be reasonably anticipated, based upon reasonable medical probability." See 39 M.R.S.A. § 2(14) (1989), repealed and replaced by P.L. 1991, ch. 885, § A-7, A-8, codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. § 102(15) (Supp. 1997).
Although the maximum medical improvement language has not been expressly imported into the new specific loss benefits provisions, the new provisions contain similar concepts expressed by use of the terms "total and permanent loss," and "actual loss" throughout subsections 2 and 3 of section 212.
Page 1 2 3 Maine Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|