Cited by

“An administrative agency must comply with the governing statute, in both spirit and letter.” Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 627 (1999) (quotation omitted).

Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 629 (1999) (stating CAB hearing is de novo).

However, interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 629 (1999); P. SALAFIA & D. DANEKE, NEW HAMPSHIRE Workers’ Compensation Manual § 13.02, at 13-12 (3d ed. 2001).

Even a long-standing administrative interpretation of a statute is irrelevant if that interpretation clearly conflicts with express statutory language.” Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 627 (1999) (quotations and *462 citations omitted).

We therefore examine the GUIDES to evaluate the legal sufficiency of a doctor’s permanent impairment assessment.

Relying on Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624 (1999), the petitioner asserts that the “award” contemplated by the statute includes medical bills.

The purpose behind limiting the issues that may be reviewed by the board is to ensure that “the parties can reasonably anticipate the issues for which they must prepare evidence and argument.” Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 629 (1999).

The plaintiff’s claim presents a question of law involving the interpretation of a statute, which we review de novo.

Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 631 (1999); Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232, 236 (1995).

medical findings with respect to the [respondent’s] life activities, and comparison of the results of analysis with the impairment criteria.” Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 632, 732 A.2d 406, 413 (1999).

Moreover, we construe the Workers’ Compensation Law liberally, “resolving all reasonable doubts in statutory construction in favor of the injured employee in order to give the broadest reasonable effect to its remedial purpose.” Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 627, 732 A.2d 406, 410 (1999) (quotation omitted).

Several deficiencies in the board’s order, however, preclude us from adequately reviewing its decision.

Even if we assume that the BTLA can validly determine the date of filing in such a manner, but see Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 627, 732 A.2d 406, 409-10 (1999) (long-standing administrative interpretation of statute is irrelevant if interpretation clearly conflicts with express statutory language); Harkeem v. N.H. Dep’t of Empl.

“Even a longstanding administrative interpretation of a statute is irrelevant if that interpretation clearly conflicts with express statutory language.” Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 627, 732 A.2d 406, 409-10 (1999) (quotation omitted).

“We construe a statute according to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used.” Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 628, 732 A.2d 406, 410 (1999).

Appeal of Rainville, 143 N.H. 624, 628, 732 A.2d 406, 410 (1999); see RSA 281-A:43, I(b), II (Supp. 1998).