Michael F. Bailey v. City of Lewiston
2017 ME 160
| Me. | 2017Background
- Michael Bailey, a Lewiston firefighter injured in 2001, was diagnosed with RADS and received partial incapacity benefits beginning in 2004.
- In 2007 a hearing officer found Bailey had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and a permanent impairment of 32%; the City did not appeal that decree.
- A 32% permanent impairment made Bailey exempt from the statute's 260-week temporal cap on partial-incapacity benefits.
- In 2013 the City submitted a new medical exam showing 0% permanent impairment and petitioned to redetermine impairment; the hearing officer granted the City’s petition and terminated benefits.
- The Appellate Division vacated that grant, holding the 2007 MMI/permanent-impairment determination was final and res judicata barred relitigation; the City appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars relitigation of a previously adjudicated permanent-impairment/MMI finding | Bailey: the 2007 decree establishing MMI and 32% impairment is final and preclusive; statute and policy support finality | City: res judicata should not prevent a party from seeking to reduce a permanent-impairment rating based on new medical evidence | Court: Res judicata bars relitigation; decrees establishing MMI/permanent impairment are final absent statutory authority to reopen |
| Whether a "changed circumstances"/new-evidence showing can be used to reopen a final permanent-impairment/MMI finding | Bailey: changed-circumstances doctrine does not apply to permanent-impairment/MMI determinations; statute provides no reopening mechanism | City: its new medical report shows a sufficient change to warrant redetermination | Court: The changed-circumstances test does not apply to permanent-impairment/MMI; Appellate Division correctly declined to reopen the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. NewPage Corp., 135 A.3d 340 (Me. 2016) (describing appellate review of Appellate Division decisions)
- Kroeger v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 870 A.2d 566 (Me. 2005) (standards for reviewing administrative decisions)
- Guiggey v. Great N. Paper, Inc., 704 A.2d 375 (Me. 1997) (statutory interpretation and deference to agency unless plain language/legislative history compel otherwise)
- Grubb v. S.D. Warren Co., 837 A.2d 117 (Me. 2003) (Workers’ Compensation Board decisions subject to res judicata and issue preclusion)
- Guar. Fund Mgmt. Servs. v. Workers’ Comp. Bd., 678 A.2d 578 (Me. 1996) (Board may not reopen or amend a final decision absent statutory authority)
- Hird v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 512 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1986) (Commission exceeded authority where no statutory basis existed for equitable estoppel)