Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 100

Petitions for review; automatic discontinuance or reduction of benefits

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1965, c. 408, §10 (RPR). PL 1969, c. 309 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 420 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 514, §4 (RPR). PL 1981, c. 698, §196 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 479, §24 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 372, §§A35-38 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 559, §§B41,B42 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 615, §D21 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 885, §A7 (RP). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases, 1966–2003 · leading case: Dillingham v. Andover Wood Products, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dillingham v. Andover Wood Products, Inc. (1984) me · cites it 8× “We conclude that both the restoration of compensation and the decision affirming that restoration by the Appellate Division involved a misapplication of the statute governing petitions for review, 39 M.R.S.A. § 100 (Supp.1983). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the…”
Folsom v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1992) me · cites it 6× “…the comparative medical evidence requirement. The amendment, by its own terms, applies only prospectively. 39 M.R.S.A. § 100.”
Dufault v. Midland-Ross of Canada, Ltd. (1977) me · cites it 3× “39 M.R.S.A. § 100 (Í964) (amended 1973). Following a hearing the commissioner found that Dufault’s incapacity for work was “not then connected to” the incident of July 1976 and ordered his compensation benefits suspended from the date of the decree, March 24,1977.”
Grubb v. S.D. Warren Co. (2003) me · cites it 3× “[5] In 1981 the Legislature amended the former Workers' Compensation Act, 39 M.R.S.A. § 100 to expressly require a showing of "comparative medical evidence" on a party's second petition for review.”
Davis v. Scott Paper Co. (1986) me · cites it 3× “Under 39 M.R.S.A. § 100 either the employer or the employee may file a petition for review, and the employer may suspend payments so long as his petition is accompanied by a certificate stating that the employee has resumed work.”
Parker v. Bath Iron Works Corp. (1994) me · cites it 5× “615, §§ D-21, D-26 (effective October 17, 1991), codified as 39 M.R.S.A. § 100(4r-A)(F) (Supp.1991). 1 Because we conclude that a suspension of benefits pursuant to section 100(4)(B)(1) is temporary and contingent upon the final resolution of the employer’s petition for review,…”
Lagasse v. Hannaford Bros. Co. (1985) me · cites it 2× “Should the employer at any time conclude that the employee's incapacity has diminished or ended, it can pursue the well-established procedure for the review of incapacity under 39 M.R.S.A. § 100 (Pamph. 1979-1984). In absence of any clear demonstration that the Arnold assumption…”
Keyes Fibre Co. v. Lamarre (1992) me · cites it 2× “In November 1987, Keyes filed a petition with the commission for a review of Lamarre’s incapacity, see 39 M.R.S.A. § 100, 2 and Lamarre filed a petition for reinstatement to suitable work.”
Leo v. AMERICAN HOST & DERRICK COMPANY (1981) me · cites it 2× “As a subsidiary proposition of *922 law, the employer contends that the propriety of the suspension under 39 M.R.S.A. § 100 (repealed and replaced by P.”
Thompson v. Claw Island Foods (1998) me · cites it 2× “Our conclusion is also consistent with the Legislature's treatment of the predecessor to section 214(1), former 39 M.R.S.A. § 100. Section 100 was amended in 1987 to permit an employer to discontinue benefits upon the filing of a petition for review when an employee refuses an…”
Mullen v. Brown Homes, Inc. (1976) me · cites it 2× “75 weekly wage) from September 8, 1971 until August 22, 1972 when the employer unilaterally suspended payments and filed a Petition for Review of Incapacity (39 M.R.S.A. § 100). When this Petition for Review of Incapacity was presented to the Commissioner for determination, the…”
Levesque v. Shorey (1972) me · cites it 2× “On July 8, 1969 the employer and insurance carrier (the appellants) filed a petition for review of incapacity pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 100 on the ground that Levesque was no longer totally incapacitated for work.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 100(1) — 2 cases
Dillingham v. Andover Wood Products, Inc. (1984) me “We conclude that both the restoration of compensation and the decision affirming that restoration by the Appellate Division involved a misapplication of the statute governing petitions for review, 39 M.R.S.A. § 100 (Supp.1983). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the…”
Dionne v. Libby-Owens Ford Co. (1989) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 100(1)(A) — 1 case
Dillingham v. Andover Wood Products, Inc. (1984) me “We conclude that both the restoration of compensation and the decision affirming that restoration by the Appellate Division involved a misapplication of the statute governing petitions for review, 39 M.R.S.A. § 100 (Supp.1983). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 100(2) — 1 case
Grubb v. S.D. Warren Co. (2003) me “[5] In 1981 the Legislature amended the former Workers' Compensation Act, 39 M.R.S.A. § 100 to expressly require a showing of "comparative medical evidence" on a party's second petition for review.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 100(2)(A) — 2 cases
Folsom v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1992) me “…the comparative medical evidence requirement. The amendment, by its own terms, applies only prospectively. 39 M.R.S.A. § 100.”
Parker v. Bath Iron Works Corp. (1994) me “615, §§ D-21, D-26 (effective October 17, 1991), codified as 39 M.R.S.A. § 100(4r-A)(F) (Supp.1991). 1 Because we conclude that a suspension of benefits pursuant to section 100(4)(B)(1) is temporary and contingent upon the final resolution of the employer’s petition for review,…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 100(2)(B) — 1 case
Nichols v. Viner Bros. (1990) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 100(4) — 1 case
Davis v. Scott Paper Co. (1986) me “Under 39 M.R.S.A. § 100 either the employer or the employee may file a petition for review, and the employer may suspend payments so long as his petition is accompanied by a certificate stating that the employee has resumed work.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 100(4)(B) — 1 case
Parker v. Bath Iron Works Corp. (1994) me “615, §§ D-21, D-26 (effective October 17, 1991), codified as 39 M.R.S.A. § 100(4r-A)(F) (Supp.1991). 1 Because we conclude that a suspension of benefits pursuant to section 100(4)(B)(1) is temporary and contingent upon the final resolution of the employer’s petition for review,…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 100(4)(B)(1) — 1 case
Parker v. Bath Iron Works Corp. (1994) me “615, §§ D-21, D-26 (effective October 17, 1991), codified as 39 M.R.S.A. § 100(4r-A)(F) (Supp.1991). 1 Because we conclude that a suspension of benefits pursuant to section 100(4)(B)(1) is temporary and contingent upon the final resolution of the employer’s petition for review,…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 100(4)(D)(1) — 1 case
Thompson v. Claw Island Foods (1998) me “Our conclusion is also consistent with the Legislature's treatment of the predecessor to section 214(1), former 39 M.R.S.A. § 100. Section 100 was amended in 1987 to permit an employer to discontinue benefits upon the filing of a petition for review when an employee refuses an…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.