It has long been established that when an issue is litigated to a final conclusion before the Workers’ Compensation Board, the matter may not be re-litigated in a subsequent proceeding. This doctrine is known as res judicata, which literally means “thing adjudged”, and although the concept arose in courts of general jurisdiction it has been… Read more »

In Richards v. D.P. Industries, Inc., Me. W.C.B. No. 17-24 (App. Div. 2017), the employee sustained a compensable injury in 2001 which resulted in significant continuing work restrictions. Ultimately a vocational rehabilitation plan was prepared by a representative of the Department of Labor’s Division of Rehabilitation Services in November 2014. The employer did not agree… Read more »

When a determination of incapacity has been made by decree, either party may file a Petition for Review to establish a different level of entitlement, but to do so the moving party must show a change of circumstances since the prior decree either through comparative medical evidence or demonstrating a change in economic circumstances. In… Read more »

It has long been recognized that in filing a Petition for Review, an employer must establish a comparative change in either medical or economic circumstances in order to justify a reduction in the level of entitlement. Comparative medical evidence is not necessary when an employer seeks to establish a change in economic circumstances. Folsom v…. Read more »

The Appellate Division recently had an opportunity to comment upon the proper treatment of an opinion of a Section 312 examiner when that opinion is ambiguous. The issue arose in a somewhat unusual procedural context. In Levesque v. Daigle Oil Company, Me. W.C.B. No. 17-21 (App. Div. 2017), the claimant was concurrently employed by Daigle… Read more »