*1 I terminology. meaning tious v. would the of the rele- See Yoder Common- construe wealth, requiring (1907). provision 107 Va. vant constitutional S.E. change, filing This have in- in the office of the Secre- might been official terpreted allowing day tary the date the fiftieth after of be made between State the date of of in convening convening Legislature in first regular five only day filing regular session as the for session and not later than o’clock, of the written in office on thereafter. petition p.m., day the fiftieth case, Hence, vote for secretary of state. in the instant total gubernatorial Governor cast in This led adoption of the 1979 con- controlling number of election was the (Constitutional stitutional resolution Reso- required percent ten upon votes which the lution, Maine, 3) State of which did provided in the electors Constitution enlarge the original forty-five day period must determined. There was error filing petition fifty days written Superior low I Court and would reverse by making following change in the lan- judgment. guage of provision by adding the relevant words: underscored may propose electors to the Legisla- bill, ture for any its consideration resolve resolution,
or including bills to amend or repeal legislation but not an Constitution, by amendment of the State petition Legisla- written addressed ture or to filed either branch thereof and Peter A. TERRY Secretary office of o’clock, the hour p.m., of five on before day fiftieth after the date of conven- PAPER ST. CO. REGIS first regular in Maine. Supreme Judicial Court of twenty-fifth session or on or before the convening dav after the date of Legislature Argued March regular in second session 12, 1983. May Decided This amendment became effective Novem
ber 1980. Where the constitutional change merely pro evinced an intention period vide definite time within which to petitions file direct of legisla initiative tion, which years had been existence which of a drafting previ inartistic
ous constitutional amendment seemed eliminated, have been sound construction the new constitutional amendment would
require that it be construed to have intend merely
ed no more put organic law back track. on See Griffin Vande griff, (1949). 205 Ga. S.E.2d An construed as amendment should not be
effecting any greater on the ex innovation
isting reasonably constitution than is neces its sary accomplish object adoption.
H07 Lanham, Stearns, Mitehell W. & Samuel Bangor, Weatherbee, M. (orally), Jr. Peter for defendant. GODFREY, McKUSICK, C.J., and
Before CARTER, ROBERTS, VIOL- NICHOLS, WATHEN, JJ. ETTE and VIOLETTE, Justice. a Terry appeals Peter A. from
Employee Division of judgment of Compensation (Appel- Workers’ Commission Division) which a decision late reversed Compensation Commission. Workers’ that a 1981 ceil- Terry contends ing workers’ compensation on maximum apply retroactively pre- does benefits injuries. Because we find enactment ceil- did not intend the 1981 retroactively, we reverse Appellate Division.
I. Paper employee of
Terry, an in- compensable a back Company, sustained receiv- jury January began 1981 and on incapacity beginning for total ing benefits day pursuant the next to an agreement the Workers’ approved by ini- Terry’s benefit level was Commission. tially by P.L. ch. codi- governed (1978), fied at 39 M.R.S.A. which § act came October 1975. That effective ceiling raised on weekly average benefits from the state 133yS% on wage average wage of the wage on July 1,1977,166%% average wage July 1,1979, average and 200% the on July 1981. 22,1981,
On enacted June McTeague, amendment”),1 Higbee Libner, (“the Maurice A. & Priest, (orally), as (Supp.1982), Libner Charles R. Bruns- codified at 39 M.R.S.A. § wick, plaintiff. emergency legislation to amend M.R.S.A. Commission; part: pertinent curity amended The statute week $25 reads nor less than weekly compensation ly; shall and such incapacity resulting While the for work annually July adjusted con on so that it 1st injury total, employer from shall percentage relation to bear the same tinues pay weekly compen employee a weekly wage ship average State in the equal average weekly gross to 2k sation his Security Employment computed as wages, earnings salary, more but not Commission, it time of did average weekly wage 166%% injury .... computed Employment Se Coates, under immediately. plaintiff effective new act left work weeks intended, wait requiring her to thirteen according statute compensa-
preamble, collecting unemployment before “negate” the increase in maxi- expected to Prior to the date Coates mum tion. days benefits which was to nine occur benefits, legislation receive her later. It the benefit capped level at 166%% *3 to, substantially ex- effectively, amended of the state average weekly wage. held there waiting period. tend her We July 1, 1981, On Regis to St. continued new to the application that of the statute pay Terry of the average weekly 166%% application, retroactive plaintiff constituted wage; responded by “Peti- Terry filing a having of her consequences as it altered the tion to Fix Benefit Level” the at 200% left work under the old statute. average wage anticipated he under the ear- suggest compensation cases Two legislation. lier The Compensa- Workers’ In case. the same conclusion instant Commissioner, tion concluding that the Co., 241 Reggep Lunder Shoe Products Legislature did not intend the 1981 amend- 802, (Me.1968), we that A.2d 804 noted retroactive, did, ment to be if it and that right worker’s to workers’ such retroactivity would be unconstitution- “and injury vested on the date of comes al, granted petition. ap- Terry’s Regis’s St. enlarged by legislation be or cannot reduced peal Appellate Division was sustained (citation to that date.” subsequent enacted opinion in an 1981 which held that omitted). amendment intended was to be retroactive only constitutionally retroactively and could that dealt Reggep be contends in effect applied. 22,1982, provisions “already On December we granted statutory that in the Terry’s injury” the time and Petition for Review. yet ceiling case 200% was not instant 395 Corp., “in effect.” Bernard Cives II. that (Me.1978),however, answers A.2d 1141 review, Terry’s petition In for granting Bernard, we that work objection. held In we ordered following that issues bill ceiling escalation injured ers after (1) prepared argument: appli- whether 1, 1977, to prior July was enacted but Terry cation of the 1981 amendment (to 133!/3 on which the first escalation date (2) would application, constitute retroactive occur, the bene %) were “entitled to whether the the 1981 Legislature intended ceiling periodic escalation of fit of each (3) apply retroactively, amendment rates of until their stated in the statute application whether satis- retroactive would statewide 200% the compensation reach fy requirements and Unit- Maine July wage computed average weekly ” conclusion, ed States Constitutions. Our rejected 1144. We thus 1981 .... Id. at require does not that we reach ceiling employer’s argument that constitutional issues. effec prescribed separate escalation statute and ruled escalation tive dates each Retroactivity A. entire became effective statute Id. at 1147-48. October
We
noted
recently
that a statute
the 1981 amendment’s
retroactively applied
ap
Application
considered
“when
who, like
ceiling
persons
plied
legal signifi
so as
determine
166%% benefit
amend-
prior to the
prior Terry,
injured
cance of
events
were
acts or
that occurred
”
alter
significantly
would
to its
....
v. Maine ment’s enactment
effective date
Coates
been
having
of their
Commission,
legal significance
A.2d
Employment Security
escalation
(Me.1979)
ceiling
(quoting
State Commission
while
Application
in effect.
on Human Relations v. Amecon Division
statute
still
Inc.,
120, 123,
would there-
Terry
360 the 1981 amendment to
Systems,
Litton
Md.
(1976)).
application.
3-4
fore constitute retroactive
A.2d
B. Legislative Intent
Mutual
Insurance Co. v. Patrons-Oxford
Co.,
Mutual Insurance
determining
whether to
However,
(Me.1980).
even an examination
retroactively
Terry,
we
legislative
of the 1981 amendment’s
back-
guided
are
“the
by
fundamental
rule
ground
requisite
to reveal
fails
clear
statutory
strictly
construction
followed
expression
legislative
intent.
this Court
that all statutes will be con
sidered to
prospective operation
have a
preamble
merely
*4
Pope,
382, 384-85,
of
103
616,
Me.
69 A.
617
apply
prior
intended to
to workers
(1908); Hastings
Lane,
134,
15 Me.
135 to the amendment’s effective date.
(1838); see Uniform Statutory Construction
Although
legislative
debate over the
14,
Act
14
(1980);
§
U.L.A. 524
73 Am.
Legisla-
1981
does
amendment
reveal
Jur.2d, Statutes
re
§§ 350-51. That rule
high
ture’s concern about the
work-
cost of
quires
Legislature
express
to
its intent
Maine,
compensation premiums
ers’
in
no
a
apply
statute retroactively
“strong,
in
appears
emerged regard-
consensus
have
clear
imperative
and
language,” Barrett v.
possible
the amendment’s
retroactivity.
Herbert
Inc.,
633,
Engineering,
371 A.2d
representatives
Two
expressed their con-
(Me.1977);
635 n. 1
Langley v. Home In
cern
application
that retroactive
would be
demnity Co.,
740,
272 A.2d
(Me.
746-47
unconstitutional, while another insisted that
1971); we will only imply a retroactive in
application
of the amendment
all work-
tent when the statute
inopera
“would be
ers,
of
regardless
injury, posed
their date of
tive other than retrospectively.” Casto v.
no
problems. Leg.Rec.
constitutional
1628-
Greer,
332, 334,
100,
44 W.Va.
30
101
S.E.
(June 11, 1981).
find,
31
We are unable to
(1898),
Miller,
quoted
retroactively, only it given prospec- must be clear, I chapter tive effect. We hold are cannot therefore that enactment of Appellate ruling today’s Division erred in that the deci- impact the exact determine ap- 1981 amendment to 39 M.R.S.A. 54§ sion. plied retroactively Terry. discussed com- previously We have entry is: concept plex surrounding problems E.g., Adams Buffalo “retroactivity.” Appeal sustained. Co., (Me.1982). 941-44 Forge Decision of Division of Work- case Court in this agree I with the that ers’ Commission vacated. what to a retro- amounts argues Remanded to the en- Appellate Division for chapter Terry. application active try of the decision: following “Decision conclusion, only be- I that reach the Commission affirmed.” held that am- previously cause we have employer pay Further ordered that the 54 does not biguous language section an employee allowance counsel fees for each prescribe separate effective dates $550.00, together in the amount with his ceiling. escalation out-of-pocket expenses reasonable for this 1141, 1147 Corp., 395 A.2d Bernard v. Cives appeal. (Me.1978). We said in Bernard “plain on occasion used Legislature had concurring. All *5 the ap- describe unequivocal” language to J., ROBERTS, J., GODFREY, whom (“This Id. Act plication of an amendment. joins, concurring. injuries occurring after only apply shall enactment does make clear date.”) (quoting its effective temporal application of an amendment 5). Unfortunately, Act, the Workers’ P.L. unequivocal” chose such “clear and no (amending- ch. 483 39 M.R.S.A. 54§ at issue in the treatment of (Supp.1982-1983)). Because present case. compensation scheme is a creation of the itself, Legislature, rather Court, uniquely this equipped impact
discern the
of its action and to in-
accomplishment
purposes.
of its
sure
American
Insurance Co. v. Mur-
See
Mutual
(Me.1980);
Wentzell
ray,
Timberlands,
Inc., 412 A.2d
notes
only,
unless the
intent
that “the
contemplated
stabilization
this
contrary is clearly expressed
necessarily
negate
bill
increase” in the
would
ben-
[the]
implied
Coates,
from the language used.”
efit ceiling
July
scheduled to occur on
(quoting