Boucher v. Maine Workers Compensation Bd.

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: June 30, 2011
• Docket: CUMap-11-12
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION Qocket No. AP-11-12 - I'

WILLIAM BOUCHER, M.D. and FORTUNE'S ROCK CONSULTANTS

Plaintiffs / Petitioners

v. Order and Decision

MAINE WORKERS COMPENSADON BOARD, eS"tAie OFM (ltrt6etliitld.88 C I1/NE Defendant / Respondent . lerk s Omen JUN 3 n2011 Rt.:'C£'JVED

The court has before it:

1) Petitioners' Motion to Specify the Future Course of Proceedings, filed March 29, 2011; 2) Defendant's/Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiffs' /Petitioners' Complaint, filed April 12, 2011, with Plaintiffs' /Petitioners' Objection filed May 2, 2011; 3) Petitioners' Motion to Take Additional Evidence and to Take Discovery, filed May 2,2011, with Defendant's/Respondent's Objection filed May 19, 2011.

BACKGROUND

The petitioners' complaint consists of two counts: an 80C appeal of a decision of

the Workers Compensation Board, which fined the petitioners $3,400 based on its

finding that the petitioners "intentionally and repeatedly violated [90-351 C.M.R. ch.

005, §12 (2011)] and knowingly continu[eJ to do so" (R. at 302); and count II, a "Cause of

Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and for Attorney's Fees" pursuant to 42

U.s.c. § 1983, which alleged that the fine the Board imposed constituted a deprivation

of property in violCltion of law, without due process, and a violation of the petitioners'

1 liberty interest in that it"creates the stigma of fraud and imposes a tangible burden on

[Dr. Boucher's] ability to practice medicine." (CampI. 19.)

The defendant now moves to dismiss count II for failure to state a claim on the

grounds that count 1, the petitioners' 80C appeal, represents the adequate and exclusive

state law remedy, and count II, which relies upon the same set of facts, is duplicative

and subject to dismissal. The petitioners' motion to specify future course of

proceedings also moves for leave to take additional evidence, including possibly

discovery, pursuant to 5 M.R.S. §11006(1), the Administrative Procedure Act. The court

held a hearing on the motions on June 30, 2011. Because the defendant's motion to

dismiss will necessarily decide the other motions, the court will address it first.

DISCUSSION

T. Defendant/Respondent's _Motion to_Disl11is~

"To formulate a cognizable section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that the

state deprived him or her of a protected liberty or property interest without due process

of Jaw." Kane v. COI17/J1'r of Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 2008 ME 185,

A.2d 1196, 1204. However, "where state law provides adequate redress to a plaintiff

deprived of a constitutionally protected property interest, no section 1983 action will

lie." Moreau v. Town of Turner, 661 A.2d 677, 680 (Me. 1995) (quotation and citation

omitted). Thus, even if the petitioners have alleged that the state deprived them of a

protected liberty or property interest, if state procedures are adequate to compensate

the petitioners for their loss, then no § 1983 claim will lie. See Gregory v. Town of

Pittsfield, 479 A.2d 1304, 1308 (Me. 1984), cert. denied by Gregory v. Pittsfield, 470 U.s. 1018

(1985); lackson v. Town of Searsport, 456 A.2d 852, 858-59 (Me. 1983), cert. denied sub nOIf]

lackson v. Handley, 464 U.s. 825 (1983); see also Gorhalf] v. Androscoggin County, 2011 ME

63, 919I 21-25, _ A.3d _.

2 The Law Court has articulated two separate but related grounds for dismissing a

§ 1983 action that is joined to an 80C. The longer-standing of the two grounds is the

Parmtt v. Taylor / Jackson v. Town of Searsport / Gregory v. Town of Pittsfield / Moreau v.

Town of Tl/mer school:

We previously have stated that 'where state law provides adequate redress to a plaintiff deprived of a constitutionally protected property interest, no section 1983 action will lie.' Gregory v. Town of Pittsji'eld, 479 A.2d 1304, 1308 (Me. 1984); Jackson v. Town of Searsport, 456 A.2d 852, 858­ 59 (Me. 1983); see Parmtt v. Taylor, 451 U.s. 527, 543-44, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420, 101 S. Ct. 1908 (1981) (holding that availability of state tort remedy satisfied due process requirement for prisoner deprived of property); Ingrnlll1711 v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 678,51 L. Ed. 2d 711, 97 S. Ct. 1401 (1977) (holding that state tort suit would provide adequate due process to child spanked by school employee); Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42­ 43 (1st eir. 1994) (holding that procedural due process claim is not actionable unless no adequate remedy available under state law).

Moreall, 661 A.2d at 680; see also Parmtt, 451 U.s. at 537 ("Nothing in [the Fourteenth]

Amendment protects against all deprivations of life, liberty, or property by the State.

The Fourteenth Amendment protects only against deprivations 'without due process of

law."') (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.s. 137, 145 (1979)); Gregory, 479 A.2d at 1308;

Jackson, 456 A.2d at 858-59. Thus, this school of reasoning explains that, even if a state

action did deprive an individual (or corporation) of a liberty or property interest, it was

nonetheless not a violation of due process as long as state procedures provide whatever

process was due.

The second ground the Law Court has more recently used to support dismissal

of a § 1983 claim appended to an 80C appeal is that the claims in the federal count were

duplicative of those asserted on the appeal:

Here, [the petitioner] relies on the same factual allegations, and seeks the same relief, for all three of her causes of action..... The court did not identify the reason for dismissing [the petitioner's] independent claims; however, because the court would have had to engage in the same analysis in addressing [the petitioner's] section 1983 claim arguments ... as it engaged in when addressing the merits of [the petitioner's] Rule SOC

3 arguments, the court did not abuse its discretion 111 dismissing [the petitioner's] independent claims as duplicative.

Kane, 2008 ME 185,

"[W]hen a legislative body has made provision, by the terms of a statute or an

ordinance, for a direct means by which the decision of an administrative body can be

reviewed in a manner to afford adequate remedy, such direct avenue is intended to be

exclusive." Fisher v. Dame, 433 A.2d 366, 372 (Me. 1981). "Resort to the courts by

alternative routes will not be tolerated, subject only to an exception for those

circumstances in which the course of' direct appeal' review by a court is inadequate and

court action restricting a party to it will cause that party irreparable injury." Id., see also

Colby v. York COlll/ty COJnIl1'rs, 442 A.2d 544, 547 (Me. 1982). "When direct review is

available pursuant to Rule 80B it is exclusive unless inadequate. Accordingly we must

determine whether direct review is available and the adequacy of that review." Colby,

442 A.2d at 547; ~f. Kane, 2008 ME 185, err 31 n.5, 960 A.2d at 1204 ("M.R. Civ. P. 80B(i)

mirrors M.R. eiv. P. 80C(i); both allow joinder of 'a claim alleging an independent basis

for relief.''').

Thus, under Maine's precedent, if direct review of both petitioners' counts is

available through 80C appeal, and that review is not inadequate, then Maine's law on

exclusivity precludes the § 1983 independent claim as duplicative. Pursuant to 5 M.R.S.

§11007(4) (2010), the court's review of the Board's decision may result in one of three

decisions including judicial reversal or modification of the Board's findings if the

Board's decision was in violation of the state or federal constitutions or of any of

Maine's statutory provisions.

Additionally, allegations that the procedures gwen were constitutionally

inadequate are also subject to direct review. See, e.g., Fichter v. Bri. of E/lvirol/mental

4 Prot., 604 A.2d 433, 436-38 (Me. 1992) (evaluating the constitutional adequacy of the

procedure in an 80C appeal); see also Sawyer v. Bd. of Licensure in Med., 2000 ME 125, err

16, 754 A.2d 996, 1000; NeT{) England Whitewater Or., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries [.,'

Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56, 58 (Me. 1988) ("Issues not raised at the administrative level are

deemed unpreserved for appellate review .... This rule applies even to unpreserved

issues implicating constitutional questions.") (citations omitted). Direct review is thus

available, and indeed the 80C appeal is the proper avenue by which the court should

evaluate claims of a violation of the petitioners' procedural due process.

Finally, direct review is adequate to address all of the claims the petitioners raise.

The Law Court has already held that the difference in available remedies does not

render direct review under Rule 80C and the Administrative Procedure Act less than

adequate. Gregory, 479 A.2d at 1308 n. 8. Under this precedent, direct review is

adequate even if it does not include the availability of attorneys' fees. Nor do the

petitioners assert any of the factors necessary for injunctive relief wherein equitable

relief would be appropriate. Cf Mehlhom v. Derby, 2006 ME 110, err II, 905 A.2d 290, 293

('"fT]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at

developed argumentation, are deemed waived.''') (quoting United States v. Zannino, 895

F.2d I, 17 (1st Cir. 1990)).

Because "[w]hen direct review is available pursuant to Rule 80B it is exclusive

unless inadequate," Colby, 442 A.2d at 547, and because the direct review of the Board's

decision is both available and adequate to address the petitioners' complaints, that

review is the petitioners' exclusive remedy. The independent claim pursuant to § 1983

and the Declaratory Judgment Act must be dismissed. See also Kane, 2008 ME 185, err 32,

960 A.2d at 1205 ("[Blecause the court would have had to engage in the same analysis in

addressing Kane's section 1983 claim arguments ... as it engaged in when addressing

5 the merits of Kane's Rule 80C arguments, the court did not abuse its discretion In

dismissing Kane's independent claims as duplicative.")

II. Petitioners' Motion - - - - - - - -to -_.Enhance ­ - - . - - - - _ .. - - _ . - ---_.. - the Record

The petitioners seek to add evidence regarding (1) the standing of the employee

who complained about the plaintiff's bill, as well as her counsel, Attorney Reben, who

pursued the complaint; (2) lithe general understanding and practice among physicians

practicing occupational medicine and the workers compensation defense bar," should

the court find that the Board had authority to consider the offending contracts between

certain employers and the petitioners; and (3) additional evidence related to his

independent § 1983 claim, specifically relating to the stigma of fraud and the tangible

burden the Board's decision places upon the petitioners' ability to practice medicine.

In light of the proposed dismissal of the petitioners' independent claims, the

general rule applies that "judicial review shall be confined to the record upon which the

agency decision was based," 5 M.R.S. §11006(1) (2010), as opposed to the general

practice favoring broad discovery in claims brought in the trial court in the first

instance. Cf Douglas v. Martel, 2003 ME 132, 835 A.2d 1099 (court has broad discretion

in promoting the goals of discovery).

Moreover, the petitioners' motion falls shy of the M.R. Civ. P. 80C(e) requirement

of an accompanying" detailed statement, in the nature of an offer of proof, of the

evidence intended to be taken" to be presented alongside the motion itselC

I The petitioner has not provided an offer of proof containing the evidence the court would

need to consider in addition to the record before it, the court lacks a basis for remanding to the agency for further fact-finding regarding Attorney Reben's justiciable interest. The court notes that the record contains Attorney Reben's complaint indicating that the petitioners submitted to him a bill exceeding the maximum allowed under the regulations, and requesting an investigation by the Abuse Investigation Unit on the grounds that, "Dr. Boucher's response reflects that he was aware of the Board Rules; that this is not the only time his billing practices have exceeded the maximum fee required by the Rules; and that he has no intention of

6 Additionally, the petitioners failed to establish that: "(1) the evidence is material to

issues presented on review; and (2) it could not have been presented before the

agency." Smith v. Maine Employment Sec. Comm'n., 456 A.2d 2, 7-8 (Me. 1983). The

second requirement could also be met by a showing that the evidence was "erroneously

disallowed in proceedings before the agency." 5 M.R.S. §11006(1)(B). There is no

evidence suggesting that petitioners attempted to introduce evidence concerning the fee

practice of occupational physicians, even after a discovery order made clear that the

petitioners' billing practices would be an issue. 2

As for the petitioners' liberty interest, the court likewise does not discern that

this evidence could not have been presented to the Board, or was erroneously

disallowed. Nor is it clear that such evidence is necessary to the court's review of the

Board's action. Cf Sawyer, 2000 ME 125,

petitioner's arguable liberty interest in reputation based upon the agency's order alone).

CONCLUSION

The entry is:

The defendant / respondent's motion to dismiss count IT of the plaintiffs / petitioners' complaint is GRANTED.

The plaintiffs / petitioners' motion to take additional evidence is DENTED.

The plaintiffs / petitioners' motion is GRANTED. The parties are hereby ORDERED to submit an agreed upon

refunding the excess fee rate to Maine attorneys unless they asked." (R. at 4-5.) For this reason, the petitioners have not established that the evidence they seek regarding Attorney Reben's status as a complaining party was "erroneously excluded" by the Board sufficient to warrant remand for further fact-finding in this area. 2 The October, 23, 2010 discovery order ordered the petitioners to "provide complete copies of the charges [Dr. Boucher] billed employees and employers for testimony related to Workers' Compensation claims and col11plete records regarding payments received for that testimony." (R. at 78-79.)

7 briefing schedule for the remaining claims withi the date of this order.

Date:

8 Date Filed 03-22-11 Cumberland Doc ke t N o. AP-11-12 _ • County

Action BOC Appeal

WILLIAM BOUCHER. M.D. MAINE WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD FORTUNES ROCKS CONSULTANTS

Ys. Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney

CHRISTOPHER C. TAINTOR. ESQ. HOWARD REBEN ESQ FOR PII CHARLENE DUTREMBLE 415 CONGRESS ST., P.O. BOX 4600 PORTLAND. ME 04112-4600 John Rohde, Esq. (Me. Workers)

Date of Entry

2011 lo.A' _