Mitton v. Verizon
38 A.3d 1285
Me.2012Background
- Mitton suffered a work-related stroke in 1995 and received ongoing total incapacity benefits.
- In 2003 he was awarded 800 weeks of total incapacity benefits for permanent and total loss of industrial use of one leg and one arm under 39-A M.R.S. § 212(2)(G).
- § 212(2) creates an 800-week conclusively presumed period of permanent total incapacity, after which eligibility is determined by facts.
- Benefits under § 212(2) are not coordinated with other benefits for the specific loss period, per § 221(1).
- Verizon paid Mitton 800 weeks under § 212(2); by 2010 the statutory period had expired, and Verizon sought offsets.
- The hearing officer awarded Mitton benefits under § 212(1) subject to § 221 offsets; this was reviewed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 212(2) benefits continue without offsets after 800 weeks | Mitton contends no offsets after 800 weeks; still permanently incapacitated | After 800 weeks, § 221 offsets may apply; subsequent determination under facts is allowed | Offsets may apply after the 800-week period; decision affirmed |
| Who bears burden to prove change in circumstances after 800 weeks | Res judicata requires no change in medical/economic status to sustain benefits | Burden is on employer to show change or that benefits were paid for the loss period | Verizon proved payment for the specific loss period; offsets upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Boehm v. American Falcon Corp., 1999 ME 16 (Me. 1999) (212(2) benefits not reduced by 221 for the loss period)
- Tracy v. Hershey Creamery Co., 1998 ME 247 (Me. 1998) (human factors recognized in 212(2) versus 221 coordination)
- Saucier v. Nichols Portland, 2007 ME 132 (Me. 2007) (interpretation of 212(2) presumptions)
- Grubb v. S.D. Warren Co., 2003 ME 139 (Me. 2003) (change in circumstances and res judicata principles)
- Farris v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 2004 ME 14 (Me. 2004) (burden on employer to prove maximum benefits paid for durational cap)
- Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 651 A.2d 358 (Me. 1994) (statutory interpretation guiding construction of workers’ compensation)