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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 63 (2026)

Notice of injury within 30 days

✓ 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(REPEALED)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. 788, §227 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 103, §1 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 151 (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 27 cases, 1974–2009 · leading case: Dunton v. E. Fine Paper Co., 423 A.2d 512 (Me. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dunton v. E. Fine Paper Co., 423 A.2d 512 (Me. 1980). · cites it 2× “Eastern argued that Dunton’s claim based on the 1972 accident was barred by his failure to comply with the 30-day notice requirement of 39 M.R.S.A. § 63 and the two-year filing limit of 39 M.”
Daigle v. Daigle, 505 A.2d 778 (Me. 1986). · cites it 6× “By stipulation of the parties, the sole issue presented to the Commissioner was whether, since Daigle was self-employed, he was required to give notice of his work-related injury to Liberty Mutual within thirty days, pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 63 (1978). The Commissioner held…”
Murray v. TW Dick Co., Inc., 398 A.2d 390 (Me. 1979). · cites it 3× “Since we conclude that the claimant failed to satisfy the notice or knowledge provisions contained in 39 M.R.S.A. §§ 63— 64, we sustain the appeal.”
Clark v. DeCoster Egg Farms, 421 A.2d 939 (Me. 1980). · cites it 2× “Appellee’s answer denied the material allegations of the petition and pleaded that notice of Clark’s alleged back injury was not given within thirty days of the injury as 39 M.R.S.A. § 63 (1978) requires. 2 Besides the time, place, and cause of injury, section 63 requires that…”
Norton v. C.P. Blouin, Inc., 511 A.2d 1056 (Me. 1986). “The general notice provision is found in 39 M.R.S.A. § 63 (1978). Prior to the enactment of section 194-B, that notice provision applied to occupational diseases by virtue of section 186.”
Am. Mut. Ins. Companies v. Murray, 420 A.2d 251 (Me. 1980). “Murray, had failed to satisfy the notice provision of 39 M.R.S.A. §§ 63, 64. Murray v. T. W. Dick Co.”
Rines v. Scott, 432 A.2d 767 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “Thus, at the time of the petitioner's accidental wrenching of his left knee, the time limitations provisions of the compensation law read as they had been amended by Public Laws, 1973, chapter 788, as follows: 39 M.R.S.A. § 63. Notice of injury within 30 days No proceedings for…”
Boober v. Great N. Paper Co., 398 A.2d 371 (Me. 1979). · cites it 2× “1 The Commissioner found as a fact that the employee failed to give notice of his injury to his employer within thirty days as required by 39 M.R.S.A. § 63. 2 We find sufficient legal and evidentiary support for the Commissioner’s decision and accordingly, deny the appeal.”
Ross v. Oxford Paper Co., 363 A.2d 712 (Me. 1976). “Under 39 M.R.S.A. § 63 (as amended 1973), notice must be given within 30 days after the date of injury.”
Jensen v. S.D. Warren Co., 2009 ME 35 (Me. 2009). “Id; 39 M.R.S.A. § 63 (Supp.1977). The Commissioner determined that Farrow had not given timely notice of the claim, and we affirmed.”
Sutherland v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 402 A.2d 50 (Me. 1979). “Since we agree with the employer’s position that the record fails to demonstrate that the employee gave adequate notice of injury as required by 39 M.R.S.A. § 63, we sustain the appeal and remand the case for further proceedings.”
Cust v. Univ. of Maine, 2001 ME 29 (Me. 2001). “2000)), for which timely notice of injury was provided, see 39 M.R.S.A. § 63 (1989), repealed and replaced by P.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.