2010-770 Premium Research Services v. New Hampshire Department of Labor & a.

No. 2010-770

Merrimack

from the appellate record. “The second injury fund was created to encourage Michael A. Delaney The following facts either appear in the petitioner’s petition or are taken

Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C.

(2010). We affirm. relating to disbursements from the second injury fund. See RSA 281-A:21-b to-Know Law, RSA ch. 91-A (2001 & Supp. 2010), for disclosure of documents , J.) of its petition under the Right-

attorney general, on the memorandum of law and orally), for the respondents.

brief and orally), for the petitioner.

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as the petitioner agreed to limit its request further to certain information available p. 2 redacted.” At the hearing on the respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, 2008 and 2009 . . . with all employee names and insurer claim numbers disbursements from the Second Injury Fund occurring in 2005, 2006, 2007, New Hampshire Treasury, seeking disclosure of “all documents relating to Thereafter, the petitioner filed its petition against DOL and respondent

again declined to comply with the petitioner’s request. it no longer requested the employee’s name and insurer claim number. DOL comply with the request. In response, the petitioner revised its request so that the [DOL] with respect to workers’ compensation claims,” DOL declined to b, which exempts from the Right-to-Know Law “[p]roceedings and records of number; and (7) the employee’s name, if possible. Relying upon RSA 281-A:21the second injury fund agreed to reimburse the employer/carrier; (6) the claim (3) the amount of reimbursement; (4) the accident date; (5) the date on which (2) the name of the insurance carrier filing for reimbursement from the fund; For each claim from the fund, the petitioner sought: (1) the employer’s name; respondent New Hampshire Department of Labor (DOL) on November 9, 2009. reimbursed carriers, the petitioner submitted an information request to To obtain information about when the second injury fund has 2

insurance. ensure that employers are not being overcharged for workers’ compensation employer’s insurance premium. The petitioner seeks to monitor this process to not adjust the employer’s experience mod, and the carrier will not reduce the not report its reimbursement from the second injury fund to NCCI, NCCI will then, in turn, reduce the employer’s premium. Conversely, if the carrier does employer’s “experience modification” or “experience mod.” The carrier will require, then NCCI will take the reimbursement into account when setting the the carrier has reported the reimbursement to the NCCI, as NCCI regulations reimbursement to the National Council on Compensation Insurers (NCCI). If second injury fund so that it can know whether a carrier has reported the The petitioner seeks information related to reimbursements from the

(2010). . . . would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone.” RSA 281-A:54, I liability “by reason of the combined effects of the preexisting impairment than from a work-related injury that results in a greater workers’ compensation impairment . . . from any cause or origin” who “incurs a subsequent disability” been paid to “an employee who has a permanent physical or mental compensation insurance carriers when workers’ compensation benefits have (quotation omitted). The fund reimburses employers or their workers’ compensation claims.” Appeal of Hartford Ins. Co., 162 N.H. 91, 93 (2011) impairments of any origin by reducing the employer’s liability for workers’ employers to hire or retain employees with permanent physical or mental the claimant. p. 3 released to other parties only with the prior written permission of section, information relating to a person’s claim or claims may be

relevant jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the provisions of this

employer or employer’s insurer, or state and federal agencies with

employer’s workers’ compensation insurer, the attorneys for the

representative, attorney, health care providers, employer, the

from RSA 91-A [, the Right-to-Know Law]. Nothing in this section workers’ compensation claims under RSA 281-A shall be exempt Proceedings and records of the department of labor with respect to Confidentiality of Workers’ Compensation Claims.

RSA 281-A:21-b provides:

Know Law, which is a question of law that we review de Resolving the issues on appeal requires that we interpret the Right–to–

162 N.H. 7, 11 (2011). construing exemptions narrowly. Hampton Police Assoc. v. Town of Hampton, 752. Therefore, we construe provisions favoring disclosure broadly, while objective of facilitating access to all public documents. ATV Watch, 161 N.H. at information in order to best effectuate the statutory and constitutional regarding the Right-to-Know Law with a view to providing the utmost overall statutory scheme and not in isolation. Id. We resolve questions 157 N.H. 375, 378 (2008). We also interpret a statute in the context of the legislature did not see fit to include. Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language that the ambiguous. Id. We interpret legislative intent from the statute as written and words used and will consider legislative history only if the statutory language is including the Right-to-Know Law, we first look to the plain meaning of the N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 161 N.H. 746, 752 (2011). When interpreting a statute,

followed. reimburse the carrier. The trial court dismissed the petition, and this appeal paid to the carrier, and the date on which the second injury fund agreed to the insurance carrier, the date of injury, the amount the second injury fund petitioner sought was limited to: the identity of the employer, the identity of weekly wages could be redacted from these forms. The information the that employee names, social security numbers, home addresses and average reimbursement of disability payments. At the hearing, the petitioner agreed reimbursable payments, and the “9WCA,” which is an application for on two forms kept by DOL, the “WCSIF-2A”, which is a schedule of p. 4 4

DUGGAN, HICKS and CONBOY, JJ., concurred.

Affirmed

this issue was not raised in the trial court. Thus, we decline to review it. See RSA 281-A:21-b violated the State Constitution, as the petitioner concedes, While the petitioner also contends that the trial court’s construction of

State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632 (1986).

persuaded that this is the case. construction leads to an absurd result, on the record before us, we are not legislative history is to no avail. Although the petitioner argues that our with respect to the records to which it pertains, the petitioner’s resort to personal employee information. As there is no ambiguity in RSA 281-A:21-b to workers’ compensation claims, not only to DOL injury reports containing 62 p. 4 4, 627 (1993). As written, the statute applies to all DOL records that pertain expressed in the statute itself.” Union Leader Corp. v. Fenniman, 136 N.H. information. “[W]e must honor the expressed intent of the legislature as intended that it apply only to DOL injury reports containing personal employee that, despite the plain meaning of RSA 281-A:21-b, the legislature actually exempt from disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law. The petitioner contends Under the plain meaning of RSA 281-A:21-b, the records sought are