# Maine State Chamber of Commerce v. Workers' Compensation Bd. > Superior Court of Maine · August 31, 2009 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809334 ## Case - **Court:** Superior Court of Maine - **Decided:** August 31, 2009 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Joseph M. Jabar - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809334 ## Opinion text STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NOS. CV-08-256 and CV-08-262 , : • \ :.' r I J ..:.j / i' (J, I _~ -­ r~:, c. AI .'~ '/ > ,~;I '/ l' 0 '/ I MAINE STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION COORDINATING COUNCIL, Plaintiffs v. WORKERS' COMPENSAnON BOARD, STATE OF MAINE Defendants And DECISION AND ORDER MAINE COUNCIL OF SELF INSURERS Plaintiff v. MAINE WORKERS' COMPENSAnON BOARD Defendant Before the court is a consolidated motion for judgment on a stipulated record by the Maine State Chamber of Commerce ("the Chamber"), the Workers' Compensation Coordinating Council ("the Workers Compensation Council"), and the Maine Council of Self Insurers. Plaintiffs seek judicial review, pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 8058, of a rule promulgated by the Maine Workers' Compensation Board ("the Board"). 39-A M.R.S. § 213 provides that the Board shall review workers' compensation cases involving permanent injury and, every two years, calculate a permanent impairment threshold such that 25% of all injured employees with a permanent impairment ("PI") will exceed that threshold. § 213 further provides that the Board shall do so through the use of an independent actuary utilizing actuarially sound data and methodology. A worker whose PI rating exceeds the resulting PI Threshold will be entitled to extended benefits. Initially, the actuary retained by the Board made the determination that the 2006 PI Threshold should be set at 12.5%. This determination was made without inclusion of the cases reported to have 0% PI. The Board then had two of its Hearing Officers review a subset of the 0% cases that were not included in the actuary's calculus. Of the 611 files reviewed, the Hearing Officers concluded that 343 lacked sufficient information to accurately assign any PI rating, and of the 268 that had sufficient information, 183 had a PI rating of 0% and the remaining 85 were something more than 0%. In light of this data, the Board recalculated its figures and ultimately set the PI threshold at 11.8%. This calculation included not only the 85 cases that were determined to have a PI rating of higher than 0%, but also the 183 cases determined to have a PI rating of 0%. Plaintiffs seek review of this determination, arguing, inter alia, that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious due to the inclusion of workers with 0% impairment. Standard of Review When an agency rule is challenged in a declaratory judgment action, the standard of review is contained in 5 M.R.S. § 8058. If the rule is procedurally sound, the court may review the rule substantively "to determine whether the rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law." 5 M.R.S. § 8058(1), Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Dept. of Env. Protection, 2003 ME 62,