Appeal of Raymond Cover, 134 A.3d 433

Raymond Cover, a part-time New Hampshire Liquor Commission employee, sustained a work-related injury in May 2013 and failed to provide the employer medical documentation by a June 14 deadline.
The employer’s carrier initially denied the workers’ compensation claim; Cover’s physician submitted documentation June 17 and the carrier later accepted the claim and paid benefits.
The Commission terminated Cover on June 17 for failure to meet the documentation/attendance deadline.
At a Department of Labor hearing Cover obtained compensability, medical expenses, and diminished earning capacity benefits but the hearing officer denied reinstatement relying on Lab 504.05(b)(3), which bars reinstatement for part-time employees.
The Compensation Appeals Board affirmed denial of reinstatement on that regulatory basis. Cover appealed, arguing Lab 504.05(b)(3) conflicts with RSA 281-A:25-a. The Commission challenged appellate jurisdiction; the Supreme Court rejected the jurisdictional objection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the right to reinstatement in RSA 281-A:25-a extends to part-time employees	Cover: the statute’s broad definition of “employee” and the absence of part-time exclusion show reinstatement right includes part-time workers	Commission: administrative rule Lab 504.05(b)(3) excludes part-time employees; alternatively, Cover’s termination made him ineligible	The Court held RSA 281-A:25-a’s reinstatement right covers part-time employees and the board relied on the rule, not termination; the rule is invalid to the extent it excludes part-time employees
Whether an administrative rule challenge must be brought only by declaratory judgment under RSA 541-A:24	Cover: an administrative challenge may be raised in an administrative proceeding on appeal to the Supreme Court	Commission: RSA 541-A:24 requires declaratory-judgment in Merrimack County naming the agency, so this appeal lacks subject-matter jurisdiction	The Court held RSA 541-A:24 is permissive; prior cases permit rule challenges in administrative proceedings on appellate review, so jurisdiction exists

Close v. Fisette, 146 N.H. 480 (procedural principle: subject-matter challenges may be raised at any time)
Petition of Mooney, 160 N.H. 607 (agency-rule validity reviewed after administrative hearing)
Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H. 659 (review of agency rule in administrative appeal; limits on reading statutes by implication)
Appeal of Mays, 161 N.H. 470 (agencies may promulgate rules but cannot modify statutes)
Appeal of Phillips, 165 N.H. 226 (Workers’ Compensation Law construed liberally for remedial purpose)
Petition of Malisos, 166 N.H. 726 (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
Appeal of Coos County Comm’rs, 166 N.H. 379 ("may" is generally permissive in statutory construction)
Appeal of Dean Foods, 158 N.H. 467 (standard for overturning administrative board decisions)
Reno v. Hopkinton, 115 N.H. 706 (court invalidated an agency rule where promulgating agency was not a party)
Appeal of Campaign for Ratepayers’ Rights, 162 N.H. 245 (expressio unius est exclusio alterius application)