Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 106 (2026)

Reports to commission

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1973, c. 571, §70 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 788, §236 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 293, §4 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 437, §6 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 372, §A42 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 559, §B46 (RPR). PL 1991, c. 615, §§A49-52 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 885, §A7 (RP). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1967–2003 · leading case: Stickles v. United Parcel Serv., 554 A.2d 1176 (Me. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stickles v. United Parcel Serv., 554 A.2d 1176 (Me. 1989). · cites it 2× “39 M.R.S.A. § 106(1) (Pamph. 1988). The Commission is then directed to contact the employee immediately and inform the employee of his or her rights.”

Tompkins v. Wade & Searway Constr. Corp., 612 A.2d 874 (Me. 1992). “In contrast, *877 section 51-B(8) specifically distinguishes payments made by decision or agreement.”

Hird v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 512 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1986). “As his first point on appeal Hird argues that the employer should be equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense because (1) BIW failed to file a timely notice of injury as required by 39 M.R.S.A. § 106 (1978) and (2) the representations of BIW’s…”

Eaton v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 502 A.2d 1040 (Me. 1986). · cites it 3× “The employer subsequently filed its notice of injury pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 106 (1978) on November 23, 1982 and answered the petition on December 6, 1982 asserting, inter alia, the statute of limitations as a defense.”

White v. Monmouth Canning Co., 228 A.2d 795 (Me. 1967). “The latter details obviously would fall short of the statutory requirements. The reference employer’s report may have specified the plaintiff’s average weekly wages or earnings as required by R.”

Joyce v. S.D. Warren Co., 759 A.2d 712 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “39 M.R.S.A. § 106 (1989), amended by P.L.”

Wallace v. Warren, 640 A.2d 203 (Me. 1994). “Warren filed a first report of injury pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 106 (1989), but never filed a memorandum of payment nor a notice of controversy.”

Cloutier-Hennigar v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2003). · cites it 5× “In 1995, Sheraton filed a Petition for Review with the Workers’ Compensation Board (the Board) seeking: 1) a grant of the Petition for Review and an order that weekly benefits cease; 2) a finding of a violation of 39 MRS.A. § 106(1) and 39-A M.R.S.A. § 308(1); 3) a grant of…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 106(1) — 2 cases

Stickles v. United Parcel Serv., 554 A.2d 1176 (Me. 1989). “39 M.R.S.A. § 106(1) (Pamph. 1988). The Commission is then directed to contact the employee immediately and inform the employee of his or her rights.”

Cloutier-Hennigar v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2003). “In 1995, Sheraton filed a Petition for Review with the Workers’ Compensation Board (the Board) seeking: 1) a grant of the Petition for Review and an order that weekly benefits cease; 2) a finding of a violation of 39 MRS.A. § 106(1) and 39-A M.R.S.A. § 308(1); 3) a grant of…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 106(2) — 1 case

Tompkins v. Wade & Searway Constr. Corp., 612 A.2d 874 (Me. 1992). “In contrast, *877 section 51-B(8) specifically distinguishes payments made by decision or agreement.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 106(3) — 1 case

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.