BAKER v. KLEIN
3/8/1995
Leavitt Baker appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Brennan, J.) dismissing Baker's civil action alleging that the Workers' Compensation Board wrongfully terminated his benefits. Because we agree with the Superior Court that Baker failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, we affirm the judgment.
The facts may be briefly summarized as follows. Baker sustained a work related injury in May 1980 when employed by Bancroft & Martin. The Workers' Compensation Commission found Baker had sustained 65% partial incapacity from the injury and awarded benefits based on that finding. In 1991, Baker's benefits were discontinued by the Commission because of its finding that Baker's condition was no longer related to the work injury. That decision was based upon the opinion of Dr. Stephen Klein, a neurosurgeon retained by Bancroft & Martin's insurer, Liberty Mutual.
Baker unsuccessfully sought review of the Commission's decision by the Appellate Division of the Workers' Compensation Commission, the Law Court and the Supreme Court of the United States. Baker then filed this action in July 1993 against both Liberty Mutual and Dr. Klein claiming that the discontinuation of his benefits was the result of an "agreement" between Dr. Klein and Liberty Mutual about the content of Dr. Klein's testimony before the Commission.
The Workers' Compensation Act provides for review of a decision of the Board when a party alleges that fraud caused the wrongful termination of benefits:
A party may petition the board, within one year of initiation
of a payment scheme, award or decree, to reopen any case in
which fraud on the part of the opposing party is alleged. If
the board finds that the petitioning party exercised due
diligence in investigating the initial claim and further finds
that fraud occurred, the board may reopen the case as to any
issue that may have been affected by the fraudulent act and the
board may terminate or modify an employer's obligation to make
payment upon a finding that fraud on the part of a party
affected the employer's obligation to make payment.
Except in the case of fraud on the part of the employee, an
employee is not barred by any time limit from filing a petition
to have any issues determined in accordance with this Act as
though the payment scheme had not been initiated.
39-A M.R.S.A. ยง 321 (Supp. 1994). By filing a civil complaint in the Superior Court alleging
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
All concurring.
Page 1 Maine Employee Leasing Services