Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 56-B (2026)

Permanent impairment

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1987, c. 559, §B33 (NEW). PL 1991, c. 615, §D8 (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 12 cases, 1991–2008 · leading case: Dumond v. Aroostook Van Lines, 670 A.2d 939 (Me. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dumond v. Aroostook Van Lines, 670 A.2d 939 (Me. 1996). · cites it 5× “At the time of his injury, 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B provided, in pertinent part: 1.”
Bourgoin v. J.P. Levesque & Sons, 1999 ME 21 (Me. 1999). · cites it 4× “20, 1987) (codified at 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B (1989)), repealed and replaced by P.”
LaPointe v. United Engineers & Constructors, 680 A.2d 458 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B (1989); Campbell v. Bates Fabrics, Inc.”
Harvey v. H.C. Price Co., 2008 ME 161 (Me. 2008). “In 1987, this approach was replaced with the “whole-body” approach, in which permanent impairment was calculated as a percentage of total body impairment, and the number of weeks of benefits to be awarded was determined according to a sliding scale based on that percentage.”
Clark v. Int'l Paper Co., 638 A.2d 65 (Me. 1994). “20, 1987), and 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B, repealed by P.L.1991, ch.”
Churchill v. Cent. Aroostook Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc., 1999 ME 192 (Me. 1999). “2d 201 , we concluded that the employee, Bourgoin, was not entitled to permanent impairment benefits for his preexisting diabetic nonwork-related condition, and that the 30% impairment resulting from that nonwork condition could not be added to his 23% work-related impairment to…”
Kotch v. Am. Prot. Servs., Inc., 2002 ME 19 (Me. 2002). “1996) (interpreting former 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B(l)(A) (1989), repealed by P.”
Edwards v. Travelers Ins., 783 A.2d 163 (Me. 2001). “§ 214 (2001)); 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B (Supp.1991), repealed by P.”
Boehm v. Am. Falcon Corp., 1999 ME 16 (Me. 1999). “615, § D-8, codified at 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B (Supp.1992) (effective for injuries occurring after October 17, 1991 and before January 1, 1993).”
Webber v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 656 A.2d 748 (Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “Webber appeals from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board denying his petition for permanent impairment benefits pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B (1989) because he was receiving permanent partial disability benefits for a “scheduled” injury pursuant to the Longshore and…”
Violette v. Leo Violette & Sons, Inc., 597 A.2d 1356 (Me. 1991). “Although the order contained no explicit provision concerning the amount of the payment, both the Commission and the parties assumed that a single payment based on a schedule set forth in 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B(l) (1989) was required.”
Bushey v. S.D. Warren Co., 642 A.2d 1352 (Me. 1994). “See also 39 M.R.S.A. Section 56-B(4) (1987), repealed by P.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 56-B(1)(A) — 1 case
Dumond v. Aroostook Van Lines, 670 A.2d 939 (Me. 1996). “At the time of his injury, 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B provided, in pertinent part: 1.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 56-B(4) — 1 case
Bushey v. S.D. Warren Co., 642 A.2d 1352 (Me. 1994). “See also 39 M.R.S.A. Section 56-B(4) (1987), repealed by P.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 56-B(l) — 1 case
Violette v. Leo Violette & Sons, Inc., 597 A.2d 1356 (Me. 1991). “Although the order contained no explicit provision concerning the amount of the payment, both the Commission and the parties assumed that a single payment based on a schedule set forth in 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B(l) (1989) was required.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 56-B(l)(A) — 1 case
Kotch v. Am. Prot. Servs., Inc., 2002 ME 19 (Me. 2002). “1996) (interpreting former 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B(l)(A) (1989), repealed by P.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 56-B(l)(C) — 1 case
Churchill v. Cent. Aroostook Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc., 1999 ME 192 (Me. 1999). “2d 201 , we concluded that the employee, Bourgoin, was not entitled to permanent impairment benefits for his preexisting diabetic nonwork-related condition, and that the 30% impairment resulting from that nonwork condition could not be added to his 23% work-related impairment to…”
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.