Name

Estate of Boyle v. Lappin Brothers, Inc.

Insurance Company

ACE Insruance

Date Decided

October 10, 2025

Panel Members

Bryan Chabot

Katherine Gatti Rooks

Lindsey Sands

Categories

Tags

File Size

165 KB

Summary from the Troubh Heisler Attorneys

Estate of Boyle v. Lappin Brothers, Inc.(Boyle IV)- Where under 39-A M.R.S.A. sec. 107 the Estate bore the burden of proof on the employer’s proportionate share of the costs of collecting a third-party settlement and failed to produce evidence of the total amount of the third-party settlement and the costs of collection, the ALJ did not err in denying the Estate’s Petition for Order of Payment. In the third appeal of this case, the Appellate Division in Estate of Boyle v. Lappin Bros. , Me. W.C.B. No. 23-18 (App. Div. 2023)(Boyle III), remanded the case for the ALJ to issue additional findings of fact and conclusions of law on the amount of Lappin Brother’s sec. 107 lien and its proportionate share of the Estate’s costs of collection. Boyle IV addresses the Estates’ appeal of that remand decision.

In McKeeman v. Cianbro Corp., 2002 ME 144, the Law Court stated the employer’s proportionate share is determined by comparing the employer’s full benefit from the third-party settlement (liability relieved) to the total amount of the settlement. Despite requests from Lappin Brothers and the ALJ, up to the time of the remand order the Estate had refused to produce the total value of the third party settlement or the costs of collection, including attorney’s fees. The Estate did not offer this evidence at a remand conference. The parties submitted proposed findings on the existing record and the ALJ issued a Corrected Decision on Remand denying the Estate’s Petition for Order of Payment because without the requested information she was unable to determine the employer’s proportionate share of the Estate’s costs of collection. On appeal, the Estate argued the ALJ erred in determining that the employer has a lien under sec. 107. The Appellate Division rejected this argument because the existence of the lien had previously been established in a 2019 decree affirmed by Boyle II and the Appellate Division recognized the existence of the lien in Boyle III.

The Appellate Division also rejected the Estate’s argument that the employer bore the burden of proof on the amount of the sec. 107 lien and its proportionate share of the costs of collection. Although the Law Court has held an employer has the burden of establishing the value of indemnity benefits and medical bills either paid or avoided by virtue of a third-party recovery, the Appellate Division was unaware of any case which places the burden of establishing the proportionate share of cost of collection on the employer. The information necessary to make this determination is exclusively in the hands of the employee. It would be impractical and unreasonable to assign the burden to the employer. The ALJ did not err in determining the Estate failed in its burden of proof.