Doucette v. Hallsmith/Sysco Food Services, Inc.
10 A.3d 692
| Me. | 2010Background
- Hallsmith/Sysco appeals a Workers' Compensation Board order awarding Doucette total incapacity benefits from April 1, 2004 to April 13, 2009, with offsets, for a fourteenth-day rule violation.
- The fourteenth-day rule requires an employer to accept, pay, or file a notice of controversy within 14 days of notice/knowledge of a claim for incapacity or death benefits.
- The hearing officer found Sysco's attempt to file a notice by electronic mail on the 14th day failed to transmit until the 15th day due to technical problems, constituting a violation and triggering five years of total benefits.
- Sysco sought a stay of enforcement or an escrow arrangement to protect potential recovery if the award was reversed on appeal.
- There is no statutory stay remedy pending appeal in the Workers' Compensation Act; §324(1) requires payment within 10 days and allows recovery of overpayments after Law Court decision.
- The Court treated Sysco's motion as an appellate review petition and set an expedited briefing schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fourteen-day rule violation supports the award of total benefits | Doucette argues Sysco violated Rule 1 by not timely filing; the delay was due to technical issues but the 15th-day filing still violated the rule. | Sysco contends the delay was caused by technical difficulties but was effectively within a day of the 14-day deadline; the award is excessive and improper. | The court affirms the Board's application of the rule and denial of stay; the statutory remedy controls. |
| Whether a stay pending appeal or escrow remedy is available under the statute | Doucette seeks to enforce the award or permit escrow to protect Sysco's potential recovery if reversed. | Sysco argues for a stay or escrow arrangement to shield funds pending appeal. | Stay pending appeal is not provided by statute; appeal remedies must proceed under §324(1). |
| Whether the remedy under 39-A M.R.S. § 324(1) adequately protects the employer | Doucette's entitlement to benefits should be determined by statute; no equitable stay is required. | Sysco contends the overpayment recovery mechanism is inadequate and biased against employers. | The statute provides the exclusive remedial framework; the Board may determine overpayment amounts and repayment terms with hardship considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guar. Fund Mgmt. Servs. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 678 A.2d 578 (Me. 1996) (purely statutory rights govern workers' compensation recoveries)
- Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 651 A.2d 358 (Me. 1994) (statutory remedies constrain judicial discretion)
- Am. Mut. Ins. Cos. v. Murray, 420 A.2d 251 (Me. 1980) (absence of repayment provision is a legislative matter)
- Ryerson v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, 495 A.2d 808 (Me. 1985) (legislature directed that compensation be paid promptly)