Michael F. Bailey v. City of Lewiston
2017 ME 160
| Me. | 2017Background
- Michael Bailey, a longtime Lewiston firefighter, suffered a work-related respiratory injury in 2001 and was diagnosed with reactive airways deficiency syndrome (RADS).
- In 2007 a hearing officer found Bailey had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and awarded a 32% whole-person permanent impairment; the City did not appeal that decree.
- Because the 2007 permanent-impairment finding exceeded the statutory threshold, Bailey was entitled to uncapped ongoing partial-incapacity benefits under the workers’ compensation statute.
- In 2013 the City submitted an updated medical exam asserting Bailey’s permanent impairment was 0% and filed a petition to redetermine permanent impairment; the hearing officer granted the City’s petition and reduced the rating to 0%.
- The Appellate Division vacated the hearing officer’s redetermination, holding the earlier MMI/permanent-impairment finding was final and precluded relitigation by res judicata; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bailey) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars relitigation of a previously adjudicated permanent-impairment/MMI finding | The 2007 decree establishing MMI and a 32% impairment is final and preclusive; relitigation is barred | Res judicata should not prevent the City from seeking to reduce impairment when new medical evidence shows improvement | Held: Res judicata bars relitigation of an established permanent-impairment/MMI finding; Appellate Division affirmed |
| Whether the City could obtain a new permanent-impairment determination by showing changed medical circumstances | Not applicable (Bailey opposes relitigation) | The City argued the new medical exam showing 0% impairment constituted a sufficient change of circumstances to reopen the issue | Held: The changed-circumstances recalculation framework does not apply to permanent-impairment/MMI findings; statute provides no basis to relitigate absent specific authorization |
| Whether reopening a final permanent-impairment finding would be consistent with statutory scheme distinguishing capped vs. uncapped benefits | Argued finality preserves statutory classification and claimant reliance | City argued allowing redetermination furthers accuracy and corrects outdated ratings | Held: Finality is required to preserve the Legislature’s dichotomy of temporal benefit limits and to avoid repeated litigation |
| Standard for reviewing Appellate Division decision on appeal | N/A (Bailey defends Appellate Division) | City sought review of Appellate Division vacatur | Held: Court reviews Appellate Division under administrative-law standards and defers to reasonable statutory interpretation absent clear contrary statutory language |
Key Cases Cited
- Grubb v. S.D. Warren Co., 837 A.2d 117 (Me. 2003) (Workers’ Comp. Board final decisions are 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 specific statutory authority)
- Guiggey v. Great N. Paper, Inc., 704 A.2d 375 (Me. 1997) (appellate deference to Board’s statutory interpretation absent plain-language compulsion)
- Freeman v. NewPage Corp., 135 A.3d 340 (Me. 2016) (procedural change limiting appellate review to Appellate Division decisions)
- McIntyre v. Great N. Paper, Inc., 743 A.2d 744 (Me. 2000) (changed-circumstances test applies to recalculation of benefit levels, not to permanent-impairment/MMI findings)