Brenda L. Freeman v. NewPage Corporation, 135 A.3d 340

Brenda Freeman suffered a work injury in 2007 (avg. wage $2,044.87/wk), returned to lower‑paying work, and received partial incapacity benefits based on the 2007 injury.
In December 2011 Freeman suffered a separate work injury that caused total incapacity from March 30 to September 10, 2012.
During that 2012 incapacity period NewPage paid 100% partial incapacity benefits calculated from the 2007 wage; those payments equaled the statutory maximum weekly benefit in effect then (39‑A M.R.S. § 211 (2011)).
Freeman petitioned for additional compensation for the 2011 injury for the same period, arguing the statutory maximum should apply separately to each injury/each loss of earning capacity.
The hearing officer denied additional benefits, the Appellate Division affirmed, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court granted review and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Freeman's Argument	NewPage's Argument	Held
Whether the § 211 statutory maximum weekly benefit is a per‑injury cap or an overall ceiling across multiple injuries	§211 should cap benefits per separate injury or per separate loss of earning capacity, so Freeman could get an additional maximum for the 2011 injury	§211 sets a single maximum weekly benefit; an injured worker cannot receive more than that maximum regardless of number of injuries	The court held §211 unambiguously sets the highest weekly benefit payable overall; not a per‑injury cap

Workers’ Comp. Bd. Abuse Investigation Unit v. Nate Holyoke Builders, Inc., 121 A.3d 801 (Me. 2015) (standard for reviewing hearing officer decisions reviewed by Appellate Division)
Estate of Sullwold v. Salvation Army, 108 A.3d 1265 (Me. 2015) (de novo review for questions of law and statutory interpretation)
Graves v. Brockway‑Smith Co., 55 A.3d 456 (Me. 2012) (construe Workers’ Compensation Act to effect legislative intent and avoid inconsistent results)
Cent. Me. Power Co. v. Devereux Marine, Inc., 68 A.3d 1262 (Me. 2013) (impairment benefits governed by law in effect on date of injury)
Adoption of M.A., 930 A.2d 1088 (Me. 2007) (court will not read exceptions into a clear, unambiguous statute)