Guaranty Fund Management Services v. Workers' Compensation Bd.

• Decision Date: 19 June 1996
• Docket Number: No. 7716,Docket Nos. K,7716
• Citation: 678 A.2d 578
• Parties: GUARANTY FUND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al. v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, et al. Michael CAIAZZO v. WRIGHT EXPRESS, et al. Mary COYNE v. KATAHDIN NURSING HOME, et al. DecisionLawen 95 119, WCB 95 115 and WCB 95 109.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 578

678 A.2d 578

GUARANTY FUND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al. v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, et al.

Michael CAIAZZO v. WRIGHT EXPRESS, et al.

Mary COYNE v. KATAHDIN NURSING HOME, et al.

Decision No. 7716.

Law Docket Nos. Ken 95 119, WCB 95 115 and WCB 95 109.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Jan. 5, 1996.

Decided June 19, 1996.

Jane E. Skelton (orally), Rudman & Winchell, Bangor, for Guaranty Fund Management Services.

Robert C. Brooks (orally), William S. Wilson, Jr., Verrill & Dana, Portland, for Hanover and Wright Express.

John A. Woodcock, Jr. (orally), Weatherbee, Woodcock, Burlock & Woodcock, P.A., Bangor, for Katahdin Nursing Home and Commercial Union.

Julia Finn (orally), Gerard Poissonnier, Workers' Compensation Board, Augusta.

Donald M. Kreis (orally), Donald F. Fontaine, Fontaine & Beal, P.A., Portland, for Mary Coyne.

Kevin M. Cuddy (orally), Cuddy & Lanham, Bangor, for Gilman Langille.

Michael Caiazzo, pro se, did not appear.

Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and LIPEZ, JJ.

LIPEZ, Justice.

The employers appeal from a decision of the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Alexander, J.) dismissing their petitions for judicial review. ¹ Those petitions challenged three separate forfeiture decisions of the Abuse Investigation Unit acting pursuant to the delegated authority from the Workers' Compensation Board. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1) (1989). The employers bring an appeal as of right from the Superior Court decision. The Abuse Unit reissued the forfeiture decisions against the employers following the Superior Court dismissal, and we granted petitions for appellate review arising from two of those decisions. For purposes of this appeal, we have consolidated the two petitions for appellate review with the employers' appeals as of right from the Superior Court decision. Agreeing with the Superior Court that it had no jurisdiction to review an Abuse Unit forfeiture decision, we affirm the court's decision. We also conclude that the subsequent forfeiture decisions rendered by the Abuse Unit on remand from the Superior Court were ineffective to revive the employers' right to seek appellate review.

I.

This appeal arises from the workers' compensation claims of three employees: (1) Michael Caiazzo, who suffered a work-related injury on February 5, 1993 while employed by Wright Express; (2) Mary Coyne, whose work-related injury occurred on October 15, 1988, while employed by Katahdin Nursing Home; and (3) Gilman Langille, who suffered a June 21, 1988 work-injury while employed by Robin Crawford. The employees each filed petitions for forfeiture against their employers for untimely payment of benefits. 39-A M.R.S.A. § 324(2) (Supp.1995); 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A(2-A) (1989), repealed by P.L.1991, ch. 885, § A-7. In each case, the Abuse Unit, acting pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Board, issued decisions assessing penalties against the employers and stating that the decisions were "FINAL AGENCY ACTION."

The employers filed separate petitions for judicial review of final agency action in the Superior Court challenging the decisions. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1) (1989); M.R.Civ.P. 80C. After consolidating the cases, the court dismissed the petitions, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review forfeiture decisions of the Abuse Unit. The cases were remanded to the Board without instructions, and the Abuse Unit issued subsequent decisions on remand in each of the cases that were virtually identical to the prior decisions except that they extended the date that payment was due. In addition to the appeals as of right from the court's decision brought by the three employers, we granted Wright Express and Katahdin's petitions for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (Supp.1995) from the Abuse Unit decisions issued after remand.

II.

We first address the employers' appeal from the decision of the Superior Court dismissing the petitions for judicial review and concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review forfeiture decisions made by the Abuse Unit pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 324. Section 324 provides, in pertinent part:

1. Order or decision. The employer or insurance carrier shall make compensation payments within 10 days after the receipt of notice of an approved agreement for payment of compensation or within 10 days after any order or decision of the board awarding compensation....

2. Failure to pay within time limits. An employer or insurance carrier who fails to pay compensation, as provided in this section, is penalized as follows.

A. Except as otherwise provided in section 205, if an employer or insurance carrier fails to pay compensation as provided in this section, the board shall assess against the employer or insurance carrier a forfeiture of up to $200 for each day of noncompliance. If the board finds that the employer or insurance carrier was prevented from complying with this section because of circumstances beyond its control, no forfeiture may be assessed.

....

(3) Forfeitures assessed under this subsection may be enforced by the Superior Court in the same manner as provided in section 323.

39-A M.R.S.A. § 324 (Supp.1995).

The employers contend that section 324 is silent regarding the right of appeal from forfeiture decisions, and therefore an appeal may be taken to the Superior Court pursuant to the Maine Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1). ² The Board joins the employers in the argument that, because the Act provides no procedure for appealing decisions of the Abuse Unit to the Law Court, section 324 must be interpreted as providing a right of appeal to the Superior Court. Pursuant to section 322, a party may initiate a petition for appellate review by presenting to the Clerk of the Law Court "a copy of the decision of a hearing officer or a decision of the board, if the board has reviewed a decision pursuant to section 320...." 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322(1). The Board contends that because it delegated forfeiture authority to the Abuse Unit, forfeiture decisions are neither decisions of a hearing officer or of the Board pursuant to section 320 (providing for a review of a hearing officer's decision by the Board), and therefore there is no express grant of authority to the Law Court to review those decisions. The employers contend further that, because a separate penalty provision in the Act, section 360, provides for direct review of penalty decisions in the Superior Court, we must infer a legislative intent to allow direct Superior Court review of forfeiture decisions pursuant to section 324. ³

Because we conclude that the Act provides for discretionary appellate review in the Law Court from Abuse Unit forfeiture decisions, we do not agree that there is a "void" in the Act with respect to appellate review requiring recourse to the Administrative Procedures Act. In construing a statute, we consider not only the plain language but "the whole statutory scheme of which the section at issue forms a part so that a harmonious result, presumably the intent of the Legislature, may be achieved." Parker v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 644 A.2d 1037, 1039 (Me.1994) (quoting Davis v. Scott Paper Co., 507 A.2d 581, 583 (Me.1986)). Although section 322 does not expressly provide for Law Court review of Abuse Unit decisions, section 323, governing the Superior Court's enforcement authority, expressly provides that "[a]ppeals from a board decision, order or agreement must be in accordance with section 322." 39-A M.R.S.A. § 323. Because the Abuse Unit was acting pursuant to the delegation of authority from the Board, the forfeiture orders were tantamount to decisions of the Board, and therefore reviewable only by the Law Court. 39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 322, 323.

The Superior Court's role in workers' compensation proceedings has traditionally been restricted to the ministerial duty of entering pro forma decrees to enforce decisions of the Commission or Board. 39-A M.R.S.A. § 323 (Supp.1995); 39 M.R.S.A. § 103-E (1989), repealed by P.L.1991, ch. 885, § A-7; Banker v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 507 A.2d 602, 604 (Me.1986). We have held that, as was the case under its predecessor statute, 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A, "the Board ... has exclusive authority to impose a forfeiture under section 324." 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A(2-A) (1989), repealed by P.L.1991, ch. 885, § A-7; Beaulieu v. Dirigo Housing Assocs., 648 A.2d 968, 969 (Me.1994). The only reference to the Superior Court that appears in section 324 is the proviso that forfeitures "may be enforced by the Superior Court in the same manner as provided in subsection 323." 39-A M.R.S.A. § 324(2)(A)(3) (emphasis added). As discussed above, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 323, like its predecessor, 39 M.R.S.A. § 103-E, provides limited enforcement authority in the Superior Court and stipulates that "[a]ppeals from a board decision, order or agreement must be in accordance with section 322 [governing appeals to the Law Court]." 39-A M.R.S.A. § 323 (Supp.1995); 39 M.R.S.A. § 103-E (1989), repealed by P.L.1991, ch. 885, § A-7.

Pursuant to former title 39, forfeiture orders were made by commissioners. W.C.C. Rule 18.3(C) (1989). Those decisions could then be appealed to the former Workers' Compensation Commission Appellate Division, thereby triggering the right to file a petition for appellate review with the Law Court. ⁴ We find nothing in the statutory language or in the legislative history of title 39-A to suggest that the Legislature intended to significantly alter the appellate procedure for forfeitures that existed under the prior Act. To provide for an automatic appeal of forfeiture decisions in the Superior Court, followed by an appeal as of right to the Law Court, would accord an enhanced right of judicial review not afforded to other workers' compensation litigants. We do not presume that the Legislature intended to provide an extra layer of appellate review in forfeiture proceedings that are designed primarily to encourage the prompt...