 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coulombe v. Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Maine11/1/2002
a number of uncontrollable contingencies.” Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 93-01 (2002).
In adopting section 102(4)(H), the Legislature elected to include fringe benefits in the average weekly wage calculation in the limited situation when an employee's weekly benefits are less than two-thirds of the state average weekly wage at the time of the injury. In Ciampi v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 681 A.2d 4, 9 (Me. 1996), we discussed the legislative history and the compromise between legislative forces that wanted to include or exclude fringe benefits from the pre-injury wage:
We are not unmindful of the legislative history of this issue following our 1989 decision in Ashby v. Rust Eng'g Co., 559 A.2d 774, 775 (Me. 1989), in which we held that certain payments must be included in the average weekly wage when employee benefits are paid for by bargained-for, dollar-for-dollar deductions from an employee's pay. . . . The Legislature's immediate response to Ashby was the enactment of P.L. 1991, ch. 615, § A-20, which purported to overturn that decision and provided that fringe benefits may not be included in an employee's average weekly wage. 39 M.R.S.A. § 2(2)(G) (Supp. 1991), repealed and replaced by Maine Workers' Compensation Act of 1992, P.L. 1991, ch. 885, §§ A-7, A-8 (effective January 1, 1993); Tompkins v. Wade & Searway Constr. Corp., 612 A.2d 874, 879 (Me. 1992). In light of this recent history, it is likely that the Legislature intended section 102(4)(H) to strike a balance between the Ashby rule and the rule of former section 2(2)(G) by providing a slightly greater recovery to those employees with the lowest weekly benefits. Id. (citations omitted).
The law authorizes an eight-member Workers' Compensation Board for the purpose of administering the Workers' Compensation Act, to be equally divided between representatives of labor and management. 39-A M.R.S.A. § 151(1) (2001). As we have stated, the enactment of Title 39-A in 1992 reflected a legislative intent “to assign Maine's unique and persistent problems of compensation utilization and duration to Ôa new labor-management board, which will have virtually total control over the operation of the system.'” Bureau v. Staffing Network, Inc., 678 A.2d 583, 588 (Me. 1996) (quoting Report of Blue Ribbon Commission to Examine Alternatives to the Workers' Compensation System and to Make Recommendations Concerning Replacement of the Present System, Findings of the Majority of the Blue Ribbon Commission 2 (August 31, 1992) [hereinafter Report, Findings]). We have recognized that:
Title 39-A was intended to address workers' compensation issues that are unique to Maine. As the [Blue Ribbon] Commission stated, “the Maine workers' compensation system is utilized in a different manner than virtually every other state's system. There is little question that Maine employees use the system more frequently than do employees in other states and stay in the system longer.” [Report, Findings] at 1. The Act reflects not so much a legislative intent to comprehensively address every workers' compensation issue in a detailed and specific way, but to commit some issues to a process in which the participants in the system, labor and management, can work out flexible and realistic solutions. Id. at 2-3. Mathieu v. Bath Iron Works, 667 A.2d 862, 866, n.6 (Me. 1995) (“ ll decisions regarding workers' compensation are developed through consensus by the new board of directors we're creating. . . . It's the only way management and labor can come together in this era.”) (quoting Legis. Rec. S-60 (3rd Spec. Sess. 1992) (Statement of Sen. Esty)). Id. at 588 n.2. See also Jasch v. Anchorage Inn, 2002 ME 106, 9
Page 1 2 3 4 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|