Graves v. Brockway-Smith Co.
2012 ME 128
| Me. | 2012Background
- Graves sustained a gradual left shoulder injury in 2003 during employment with Brockway-Smith and received medical treatment through May 2003.
- Brockway-Smith paid all medical bills for the 2003 injury and filed a first report of injury only as a medical-claims matter, not with the Board since Graves did not lose time from work.
- Graves timely reported the 2003 injury; no work time was lost, so no Board first report was filed by employer at that time.
- Graves filed a petition for the 2008 shoulder injury on March 15, 2010; Brockway-Smith then filed a first report of injury after receiving the petition and challenged timeliness under § 806(2).
- The hearing officer applied Wilson v. Bath Iron Works to toll the six-year period until the first report was filed, issuing a decision in Graves’s favor.
- Brockway-Smith sought appellate review; the Board denied, and the case was appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 306(2) tolls the six-year period until a first report of injury is filed. | Graves’s claim not time-barred until first report filed per Wilson reasoning. | § 306(2) begins six-year period from payments within period in § 306(1) and need not await first report. | Six-year period tolled until first report filed; claim not time-barred. |
| Is Wilson controlling for § 306(2) tolling despite textual differences from § 306(1)? | Wilson applies by policy to toll until first report, consistent with 306(2). | Wilson does not apply to § 306(2) because it lacks 'whichever is later' and first-report reference. | Wilson governs tolling under § 306(2) and the claim is not time-barred. |
| What is the starting point for the six-year period under § 306(2)? | Started when the employer paid or when first report filed, whichever triggers § 306(1). | Starts from the date of injury when payments occur within § 306(1) period. | Six-year period starts when first report is filed, via § 306(1) reference. |
| Does triggering notice under § 304 affect the outcome of tolling? | First report prompts Board notice; tolling aligns with notifying employee rights. | Notice considerations do not undermine statutory tolling under § 306(2). | Notice purpose supports tolling until first report is filed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Bath Iron Works, 942 A.2d 1237 (Maine, 2008) (two-year limit tolling tied to first report of injury; 'whichever is later')
- Jensen v. S.D. Warren Co., 968 A.2d 528 (Maine, 2009) (abrogated Wilson on certain § 306(1) interpretations)
- Monaghan v. Jordan’s Meats, 928 A.2d 786 (Maine, 2007) (evidence for work-search and post-decision adjustments)
- Hird v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 512 A.2d 1035 (Maine, 1986) (statutory purpose balancing compensation and finality)
- Pino v. Maplewood Packing Co., 375 A.2d 534 (Maine, 1977) (statutory injury claim limitations context)