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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 66-A (2026)

Worker reinstatement rights

✓ 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(REPEALED)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. 417 (NEW). PL 1981, c. 474, §3 (RPR). PL 1983, c. 647 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 372, §§A27,28 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 729, §3 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 559, §B35 (RPR). PL 1989, c. 388 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 615, §§A37,38 (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, 1977–2003 · leading case: Keene v. Fairchild & Co., 593 A.2d 655 (Me. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Keene v. Fairchild & Co., 593 A.2d 655 (Me. 1991). · cites it 6× “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A (Supp.1986), amended by P.”
Cote v. Great N. Paper Co., 611 A.2d 58 (Me. 1992). · cites it 6× “Under 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A, if the employer offers the employee a job "suitable to his physical condition," the employee must accept it or suffer the penalties of the act.”
Thompson v. Claw Island Foods, 1998 ME 101 (Me. 1998). · cites it 3× “This interpretation is consistent with the heading of subsection (5), “Failure to comply,” indicating that the subsection only apples in the event of an employer or employee’s actual failure to comply with the obligations of formal reinstatement procedure after a petition for…”
King v. Bangor Fed. Credit Union, 568 A.2d 507 (Me. 1989). “The current version of 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A dealing, in part, with the employer's requirement to reasonably accommodate the physical condition of the employee, was not in effect that the time King left her employment with the Credit Union.”
Keyes Fibre Co. v. Lamarre, 617 A.2d 213 (Me. 1992). “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A. The petitions were consolidated for a hearing before the commission.”
Morgan-Leland v. Univ. of Maine, 632 A.2d 748 (Me. 1993). “That statute allowed reinstatement anytime “until one year after the employee has reached the stage of maximum medical improve-ment_” 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A(3), repealed by P.L.1991, eh.”
Michaud v. Thayer Hosp. Assocs., 391 A.2d 1193 (Me. 1978). · cites it 3× “417 (39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A) did thrust upon former employers of persons suffering a compensable *1196 injury which disables the employee from performing his customary work the duty to transfer him to work suitable to his physical condition where such work is available, during the…”
Cote v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Maine, Inc., 432 A.2d 1301 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “A few months before the hospital filed its petition for review of incapacity, Cote had moved the Commission to order the hospital to transfer her to suitable work pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A (1978). In response to' Cote’s motion the hospital had offered her the position of…”
Roy v. Sanborn's Motor Express, Inc., 377 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1977). · cites it 2× “This case requires us to evaluate for the first time the import of 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A enacted in 1971 (P.L.1971, Chap.”
Williams v. E.S. Boulos Co., 2000 ME 40 (Me. 2000). “B, § 35 (codified at 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A(3) (1989)), repealed by P.”
Cloutier-Hennigar v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2003). “§ 308(1); 3) a grant of forfeiture of benefits for failure to accept reinstatement to suitable work; and 4) an order of repayment of compensation received by a violation of the Act, fraud, or intentional misrepresentation, pursuant to 39 M.RS.A. § 66-A, §218(5) and 39-A M.R.S.”
DiPietro v. J.J. Nissen Baking Co., 616 A.2d 352 (Me. 1992). “Included in an employer’s remedies authorized under the Act are a petition for reduction of benefits upon an employee’s refusal of an offer of reinstatement, 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A(6) (1989) (“the employer or insurance carrier may file .”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 66-A(3) — 2 cases
Morgan-Leland v. Univ. of Maine, 632 A.2d 748 (Me. 1993). “That statute allowed reinstatement anytime “until one year after the employee has reached the stage of maximum medical improve-ment_” 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A(3), repealed by P.L.1991, eh.”
Williams v. E.S. Boulos Co., 2000 ME 40 (Me. 2000). “B, § 35 (codified at 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A(3) (1989)), repealed by P.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 66-A(6) — 2 cases
Cote v. Great N. Paper Co., 611 A.2d 58 (Me. 1992). “Under 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A, if the employer offers the employee a job "suitable to his physical condition," the employee must accept it or suffer the penalties of the act.”
DiPietro v. J.J. Nissen Baking Co., 616 A.2d 352 (Me. 1992). “Included in an employer’s remedies authorized under the Act are a petition for reduction of benefits upon an employee’s refusal of an offer of reinstatement, 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A(6) (1989) (“the employer or insurance carrier may file .”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 66-A(7) — 1 case
Cote v. Great N. Paper Co., 611 A.2d 58 (Me. 1992). “Under 39 M.R.S.A. § 66-A, if the employer offers the employee a job "suitable to his physical condition," the employee must accept it or suffer the penalties of the act.”
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.