CARROLL v. GATES FORMED FIBRE PRODUCTS
7/31/1995
Carol Carroll appeals from a decision of the The Commissioner found that, although the employer had notice of the injury, the employer had no notice or knowledge of an event that constituted an obligation to pay benefits. Finding no error in the Commissioner's decision, we affirm.
Carroll suffered a head injury on Wednesday, April 29, 1987, her first day of employment with Gates. Carroll returned to work on Monday, May 4, worked half a day, and then quit stating that she was afraid of the machinery and got headaches from the noise. In 1989 Carroll filed a petition for order of payment contending that Gates had accepted her claim for total and continuing incapacity benefits by failing to file a timely notice of controversy pursuant to section 51-B(7). Following the Commission's denial of Carroll's petition, the Appellate Division failed to resolve Carroll's appeal prior to January 1, 1994, and we granted her petition for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (Supp. 1994-95).
Carroll contends that section 51-B(3) obligated Gates to pay her incapacity benefits fourteen days after it learned of her injury. Subsection 51-B(3), provides, in pertinent part:
The first payment of compensation for incapacity . . . is due
and payable within 14 days after the employer has notice or
knowledge of the injury. . . .
39 M.R.S.A. § 51-B(3) (1989). Further she argues that because Gates failed to file a notice of controversy within forty-four days of her injury section 51-B(7) estops Gates from contesting its liability thereafter. Section 51-B(7) 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 as 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 injury or death. . . .
39 M.R.S.A. § 51-B(7) (1989) (emphasis added). See Wentworth v. Manpower Temp. Servs., 589 A.2d 934, 937 (Me. 1991); Stickles v. United Parcel Serv., 554 A.2d 1176, 1179 (Me. 1989).
Relying on section 53 that provides, in pertinent part, " o compensation for incapacity . . . shall be payable for the first 3 days of incapacity . . .," 39 M.R.S.A. § 53 (1989), the Commission ruled that until Gates received notice or had knowledge that Carroll missed three days of work because of her injury, it had no duty to pay incapacity benefits. We agree.
Carroll contends that she missed four days for purposes of section 53, including at least one nonworkday (Sunday), and therefore Gates had a duty to controvert her claim This argument is misplaced. Even if Carroll had missed four days for purposes of section 53, the Commission found Gates had no notice or knowledge that the employee lost four days of employment as a result of her injury and therefore Gates had no notice of the obligation to pay benefits for lost time.
As we have stat
Page 1 2 Maine Employee Leasing Services