Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 104-A (2026)

Compensation payments; penalty

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(REPEALED)

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1971, c. 155 (NEW). PL 1973, c. 746, §10 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 333 (RPR). PL 1977, c. 696, §349 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 291, §2 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 485 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 698, §§200,201 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 479, §§27,28 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 77, §§5,6 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 290 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 559, §§B44,B45 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 503, §B180 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 615, §A47 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 825, §6 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 885, §A7 (RP). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases, 1977–2018 · leading case: Victor S. Urrutia v. Interstate Brands Int'l, 2018 ME 24 (Me. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Victor S. Urrutia v. Interstate Brands Int'l, 2018 ME 24 (Me. 2018). · cites it 3× “We note that, for reasons that are not apparent, our decision in Pelotte did not address or even acknowledge the "compensation payments; penalty" provision, 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A (1983), that was in effect at the time and contained similar language as the current provision found…”

Guar. Fund Mgmt. Servs. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 678 A.2d 578 (Me. 1996). · cites it 4× “1995); 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A(2-A) (1989), repealed by P.”

LaRochelle v. Crest Shoe Co., 655 A.2d 1245 (Me. 1995). · cites it 6× “The Commission, however, ruled that, pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A (1989), the insurers were not entitled to recover overpayments during the four-year pendency of their motions.”

Am. Mut. Ins. Companies v. Murray, 420 A.2d 251 (Me. 1980). · cites it 2× “54 paid as periodic compensation while the appeal was pending, as required by 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A. 1 Upon Murray’s motion under M.”

Lucas v. E.A. Buschmann, Inc., 656 A.2d 1193 (Me. 1995). · cites it 3× “We conclude that the failure to pay the attorney fee award was not a failure to pay “compensation” pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A. The Board was not authorized to award a penalty for the employer’s failure to pay attorney fees during the pendency of the appeal or to award…”

Armistead v. C & M Transp., Inc., 49 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 1995). “1986); see also 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A. 4 . Any claim in this case not covered by the foregoing principles would be subject to dismissal under the related doctrine of Burford-type abstention.”

Dufault v. Midland-Ross of Canada, Ltd., 380 A.2d 200 (Me. 1977). “333, repealed former 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A (enacted 1971; amended 1973) enacting in its stead a substitute provision expressly stating in part: “If the commission, after a review of incapacity under section 100, issues an order or decision denying compensation to an employee,…”

Johner v. Wyoming State Treasurer Ex Rel. Worker's Comp. Div., 643 P.2d 932 (Wyo. 1982). “The court explained the reasons for its holding as follows: “Whether, when the worker has lost on appeal, the beneficent purposes of our workers’ compensation law would be frustrated by a rule requiring repayment of benefits paid pursuant to the mandate of 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A is…”

Keyes Fibre Co. v. Lamarre, 617 A.2d 213 (Me. 1992). “1980); 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A. Because, as a matter of law, it was Lamarre who had the property interest in the money at the time of the alleged conversion, the trial court erred in not rendering a summary judgment for La-marre on Count II of Keyes’ complaint.”

Leo v. Am. Host & Derrick Co., 438 A.2d 917 (Me. 1981). “Leo countered with a “Petition For Resumption of Payment of Compensation” which he contends was filed pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A. That petition noted, inter alia, that the agreement for compensation did not take into account wages earned by Leo at the part-time job he held…”

Dionne v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 621 A.2d 414 (Me. 1993). “39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A(1) (1989) governs an employer’s right to recover payments made pending appeal: The employer or insurer may recover from an employee payments made pending appeal to the Appellate Division or pending report or appeal to the Law Court if and to the extent that…”

Collora v. Leahy (In Re Leahy), 170 B.R. 10 (Bankr. D. Me. 1994). “39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A(2-B) (repealed by 39-A M.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 104-A(1) — 7 cases

LaRochelle v. Crest Shoe Co., 655 A.2d 1245 (Me. 1995). “The Commission, however, ruled that, pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A (1989), the insurers were not entitled to recover overpayments during the four-year pendency of their motions.”

Victor S. Urrutia v. Interstate Brands Int'l, 2018 ME 24 (Me. 2018). “We note that, for reasons that are not apparent, our decision in Pelotte did not address or even acknowledge the "compensation payments; penalty" provision, 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A (1983), that was in effect at the time and contained similar language as the current provision found…”

Kuvaja v. Bethel Sav. Bank, 495 A.2d 804 (Me. 1985).

Cook v. Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co., 402 A.2d 64 (Me. 1979).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 104-A(2) — 1 case

Soule v. Stinson Canning Co., 537 A.2d 1152 (Me. 1988).

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.