 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BERRY v. H.R. BEAL & SONS11/9/1994
meaning that an injured worker who retires should not receive workers' compensation and social security benefits which when combined exceed his previous working income. See L.D. 1062, Statement of Fact (112th Legis. 1985). Because he was already receiving social security when injured and because workers' compensation benefits are always a fraction of pre-injury wages, Berry asserts that it was impossible for his post-injury benefits to exceed his pre-injury income. He therefore concludes that section 62-B violates the Equal Protection Clause in this case because it is "not rationally related to an otherwise legitimate State purpose." Stated another way, he contends
As an initial matter, the Legislature had at least two goals in mind when it enacted section 62-B: (1) to coordinate benefits or to prevent the stacking of benefits, see Casey v. Town of Portage Lake, 598 A.2d 448, 451 (Me. 1991), and (2) to alleviate the burden on employers who are required to pay into the workers' compensation and social security systems, see L.D. 1634, Statement of Fact (112th Legis. 1985). Clearly, section 62-B is rationally related to these goals. Although Berry argues that the application of the offset is not fair in his case, we cannot conclude that his inclusion within this section's coverage is arbitrary or irrational. Cf. Dishon v. Maine State Retirement Sys., 569 A.2d 1216, 1217 (Me. 1990) (upholding constitutionality of offsetting workers' compensation and social security disability benefits against employee's disability retirement benefits from the Maine State Retirement System).
We also reject Berry's contention that the Legislature did not intend for the offset to apply to employees who were already receiving social security at the time of their compensable injury . Section 62-B explicitly provides that the employer's obligation to pay weekly compensation shall be reduced by fifty percent of social security benefits "received or being received." 39 M.R.S.A. ยง 62-B(3)(A)(1) (emphasis added). See also Leo v. Danco/D & W Constr. Co., W.C.C.App. Div. 231, 234 (Me. 1993) (section 62-B specifically applies to social security benefits that are received "before or after an injury").
II. Proration of the Offset
The Commissioner found, and the parties do not dispute, that the 1977 and 1990 injuries were equally responsible for Berry's total incapacity. Although section 62-B applies "only as to injuries occurring on and after" June 30, 1985, the Commissioner ruled that Berry's workers' compensation benefits ($207.43) were subject to the entire offset. Berry argues that the Commissioner should only have allowed H.R. Beal & Sons or its insurer to take half of the offset provided for in section 62-B. H.R. Beal & Sons responds that the statute does not provide for the proration of offsets. This we need not decide.
Because the social security offset of $57 (50% of $114) is less than the workers' compensation benefit allocable to the second injury (50% of $207.43), the Commission was correct in authorizing the entire offset.
The entry is:
The decision of the Appellate Division is affirmed.
All concurring.
Page 1 2 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|