Fay E. Johnson v. The Home Depot USA, Inc., 106 A.3d 401

Fay E. Johnson, a Home Depot employee, was awarded workers’ compensation benefits by a 2010 consent decree; benefits had been designated for delivery to her attorney and later increased to 100% after surgery.
Johnson disappeared in March 2012; a Probate Court later appointed her daughter temporary conservator with authority over workers’ compensation matters.
In June 2012 Home Depot filed two petitions with the Workers’ Compensation Board: (1) review of incapacity (seeking to stop benefits) and (2) forfeiture for failure to attend a §207 exam. Both petitions were served by certified mail on Johnson’s attorney only, not on Johnson or her daughter.
Home Depot also filed a certificate reducing benefits to the prior 50% rate, citing that Johnson’s whereabouts were unknown.
The hearing officer ordered Home Depot to hold future benefit payments in a segregated account pending decision, later granted the petition for review and suspended benefits until Johnson reappeared and petitioned for reinstatement (with retroactivity if she returns); the forfeiture petition was dismissed as moot.
The Board Appellate Division affirmed; the Law Court granted review and affirmed the Board’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service of petitions under 39-A M.R.S. § 307(2) was defective because served only on plaintiff’s attorney, not the missing employee or her conservator	Johnson: service on counsel was insufficient because counsel lacked authority to accept service for her and statute requires service on the parties named	Home Depot: service on the long‑standing attorney who continued to represent Johnson satisfied the statute	Service on the attorney was sufficient in these circumstances; Board’s interpretation was reasonable and entitled to deference
Whether the hearing officer had authority to order benefits held in escrow and later suspend payments pending reappearance	Johnson: hearing officer lacked authority to divert benefits from the employee or her designee and to suspend ongoing benefits	Home Depot: ordering escrow and suspension was appropriate to protect employer interests when employee is missing	Court upheld the escrow-then-suspension approach as reasonable, protective of both parties, and within Board’s discretionary authority

Scott v. Fraser Papers, Inc., 65 A.3d 1191 (Me. 2013) (statutory construction and deference to Board interpretations)
Buckley v. S.D. Warren Co., 997 A.2d 747 (Me. 2010) (deference to Board’s statutory interpretation)
Hackett v. W. Express, Inc., 21 A.3d 1019 (Me. 2011) (Board expertise in construing the Act)
Doucette v. Hallsmith/Sysco Food Servs., Inc., 21 A.3d 99 (Me. 2011) (legislative intent to delegate interpretive authority to the Board)
Bridgeman v. S.D. Warren Co., 872 A.2d 961 (Me. 2005) (Act contains "gray areas" requiring flexible solutions)
Estate of Joyce v. Commercial Welding Co., 55 A.3d 411 (Me. 2012) (encouragement to let Board fill statutory gaps and deference to its determinations)
Foley v. Verizon, 931 A.2d 1058 (Me. 2007) (upholding pragmatic, common-sense Board actions that further the Act’s purposes)