 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
LAROCHELLE v. CREST SHOE CO.3/9/1995
Crest Shoe Company (Crest) and its
Georgette LaRochelle suffered a work-related injury in 1985, while Crest was insured by Liberty Mutual, and a second injury in 1986, while Crest was insured by Hanover. In separate decrees, the Commission awarded LaRochelle 50% partial incapacity benefits for the 1985 injury, and 100% benefits for the 1986 injury, based on Hanover's failure to timely controvert the claim, pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 51-B (1989). Both insurers filed timely motions for findings of fact. Inexplicably, the Commission did not issue findings until October 1991, more than four years after the initial decree. In its findings, the Commission acknowledged that the award of 150% incapacity benefits had been in error and ordered Liberty Mutual to pay Hanover the continuing 50% benefits that it had been previously paying to LaRochelle. The Commission, however, ruled that, pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A (1989), the insurers were not entitled to recover overpayments during the four-year pendency of their motions. Crest and its insurers appealed to the Appellate Division which also ruled that, pursuant to section 104-A, the Commission does not have authority to order the reimbursement of overpayments made during the time when a motion for findings of fact is pending. We granted the insurers' petition for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (Supp. 1994).
As we noted in American Mutual Insurance Co. v. Murray, 420 A.2d 251, 252 (Me. 1980), the Commission has no authority to order the reimbursement of overpayments made prior to appeal other than that which is expressly granted in the Act. In response to our decision in Murray, the Legislature amended section 104-A to provide in pertinent part:
The employer or insurance carrier shall make compensation
payments as follows:
1. Order or decision. . . . Payment shall not be suspended .
. . in the event of appeal to the Appellate Division as
provided in section 103-B or, if the division finds that the
employee is entitled to compensation, in the event of appeal to
the Law Court from a decision of the division as provided in
section 103-C, except that the commission shall retain
jurisdiction, pending the decision on appeal, to enter orders
or decisions as provided in section 100. If the commission,
after a review of incapacity under section 100, issues an order
or decision denying compensation to an employee, compensation
shall be suspended from the date of the commission's order or
decision, notwithstanding any appeal of that order or decision.
. . . The employer or insurer may recover from an employee
payments made pending appeal to the Appellate Division or
pending report or appeal to the Law Court if and to the extent
that the Appellate Division or the Law Court has decided that
the employee was not entitled to the compensation paid. The
commission shall have full jurisdiction to determine the amount
of overpayment, if any, and the amount and schedule of
repayment, if any. The commission, in determining whether or
not repayment should be made and the extent and schedule of
repayment, shall consider the financial situation of the
employee and his family and shall not order repayment which
would work hardship or injustice.
39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A (1989) (emphasis added).
Because the statutory language is unambiguous, we need not examine its legislative history to discover legislative intent. See Estate of Stone v. Hanson, 621 A.2d 852, 853 (Me. 1993). We note, however, that an examination of the legislative history does not suggest a different result in this case. All that can be gleaned from the legislative his
Page 1 2 3 Maine Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|