VAN HOUTEN v. HARCO CONST.
2/27/1995
Jay A. Van Houten appeals from the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board denying his petition for payment of medical expenses based on its finding that his claimed back injury was not work related. We agree with Van Houten's contention that the factual determination of a Massachusetts administrative court that on October 2, 1986, Van Houten suffered a work-related back injury barred his employer, Harco Construction, from relitigating that issue in the present proceeding before the Board. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the Board.
The record reflects the following undisputed facts: Van Houten, a Maine resident, suffered a work-related injury in Massachusetts on October 2, 1986. G.H. Harnum, Inc., (Harnum) accepted liability as his employer under the Massachusetts workers' compensation law and voluntarily paid total incapacity benefits. Harnum subsequently filed a complaint for discontinuance and, in 1990, a Massachusetts administrative court ordered a discontinuance of total incapacity benefits and a continuance of partial incapacity benefits in the amount of $240 per week. See Mass.Ann. Laws ch. 152, ยงยง 34, 35 (Law Coop. 1989). The administrative court noted that " t is undisputed that Mr. Van Houten injured his leg in the accident. . . . what is in dispute is whether this employee also sustained back injury." The court concluded that "Mr. Van Houten injured his left leg and his back in the industrial accident of October 2, 1996." (Emphasis added).
In 1991, Van Houten filed a petition for award pursuant to Maine's Workers' Compensation Act. The parties entered into consent decrees issued by the Commission in 1992, granting Van Houten's petition for award and awarding continuing partial incapacity benefits with an offset for payments made pursuant to the Massachusetts decision. The first consent decree provided:
G.H. Harnum, Inc. and Harco Construction, Inc. are corporations
organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
On October 2, 1986, both corporations were wholly owned by the
Harnum family and run by Gordon L. Harnum. . . . On October 2,
1986, both G.H. Harnum, Inc. and Harco Construction, Inc. were
insured under one workers' compensation insurance policy issued
by Continental Insurance Company. . . . On October 2, 1986, Jay
A. Van Houten sustained a personal injury arising out of and in
the course of his employment with Harco Construction, Inc. The
Commission specifically makes no finding as to whether, at the
time of his injury, Mr. Van Houten was also an employee of G.H.
Harnum, Inc.
The consent decree was amended to provide that
he parties have agreed to treat the Petition for Award of
Compensation against G.H. Harnum, Inc. as a Petition for Award
against Harco Construction, Inc. The Employee specifically
waives any rights that he may have as an employee of G.H.
Harnum, Inc. under the Maine Workers' Compensation Act.
In 1992, Van Houten filed a petition against Harco to fix the payment of $3960.00 for psychological treatment related to his chronic back pain. In 1993, the Board denied Van Houten's petition for payment, finding that the medical records did not corroborate Van Houten's claim that he had injured his back on October 2, 1986, and accordingly, Van Houten's back condition was not related to his injury of that date. The Board rejected Van Houten's argument, inter alia, that Harco was collaterally estopped from relitigating causation by the prior Massachusetts decision, ruling that
Maine Law is applicable on the issue of the description of the
injury, and the Massachusetts decision is not binding on the
Board on that
Page 1 2 3 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys