Court affirms board: penalty for "premature" claim closure unavailable unless closure is put at issue in hearing

Lauren Eldridge (introduced on the meeting agenda as the presenter of board case'law updates) reviewed the Court of Appeals decision in Calvi v. Gallagher Bassett Services Inc. Eldridge summarized the statutory framework: a penalty for premature claim closure is awardable only if (1) the carrier issued a notice of closure and closed the workers' claim, (2) the correctness of that notice is "at issue" in a hearing, and (3) a hearing finding concludes the notice was unreasonable.

Eldridge described the facts: the carrier issued a notice of closure, the worker requested reconsideration with the Appellate Review Unit (ARU) and obtained a favorable determination, the worker did not appeal the ARU order (because it was favorable), and later filed a separate hearing request seeking only a penalty. The board concluded, and the court affirmed, that a penalty was not awardable because the correctness of the notice of closure had not been placed at issue in an administrative hearing. Eldridge noted a lengthy concurrence by Board Member Uzi that "expressed a lot of concerns" about the dual'forum process and suggested statutory amendments either to allow ARU to award penalties at the initial review stage or to remove the requirement that the correctness be put at issue only at a hearing.

Eldridge also said she checked the court case management system and "didn't see either an appellate judgment indicating that this is final or a Supreme Court petition for review," and that she would provide an update if filings appear. The committee had no substantive procedural questions after the presentation.