Estate of Joyce v. Commercial Welding Co.
2012 ME 62
| Me. | 2012Background
- Michael Joyce worked as a union laborer and longshoreman with heavy asbestos exposure; he died of lung cancer on Sept. 16, 2008.
- Michael filed a petition for award under the Occupational Disease Law before his death; Mary Joyce filed a petition for death benefits afterward.
- The proceedings were bifurcated to address notice sufficiency and the applicability of the fourteen-day rule.
- In 2009 the hearing officer found adequate notice and that the fourteen-day rule applies to Occupational Disease claims.
- On Sept. 30, 2009 Commercial Welding paid $61,763.98 for the fourteen-day rule violation without interest; the payment exceeded the award amount.
- At a later hearing the hearing officer awarded the Estate benefits for Oct. 1, 2007 to Sept. 16, 2008 and Mary 500 weeks of death benefits, and concluded that interest on the violation was due but that offset against Mary’s death benefits was not permitted; on appeal the Board’s decision was partially vacated and partially affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interest is owed on the fourteen-day rule payment. | Estate argued that the payment constitutes interest-bearing compensation. | Commercial Welding contends the payment is not compensation and interest is not due; the fourteen-day payment is not an award. | No; interest is not owed because the payment is not compensation and cured when paid. |
| Whether the fourteen-day rule payment can be offset against Mary's death benefits. | Estate contends the excess paid under the violation should offset death benefits. | Mary’s death-benefit petition is a separate claim; no offset allowed. | No offset against death benefits; the death-benefit award is not reduced by the violation payment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guiggey v. Great Northern Paper, 1997 ME 232 (Me. 1997) (pre-decree interest purpose; compensation delay and discouraging contest)
- Jasch v. The Anchorage Inn, 2002 ME 106 (Me. 2002) (consent decree/mediated agreements as awards; interest applicability under §205(6) and Rule ch. 8)
- Doucette v. Hallsmith/Sysco Food Servs., Inc., 2011 ME 68 (Me. 2011) (ambiguity and Board rule interpretations; payment timing)
- Bridgeman v. S.D. Warren Co., 2005 ME 38 (Me. 2005) (fourteen-day rule purpose; timely filings; penalties)
- Wentworth v. Manpower Temp. Servs., 589 A.2d 934 (Me. 1991) (early pay system context; administrative efficiency)
- Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Prof Is Licensure, 2006 ME 48 (Me. 2006) (strict construction of penalties; non-compensation payments)