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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 71 (2026)

Lump-sum payments

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1977, c. 437, §3 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 479, §13 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 559, §B36 (RP).
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, 1967–1992 · leading case: King v. Bangor Fed. Credit Union, 568 A.2d 507 (Me. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King v. Bangor Fed. Credit Union, 568 A.2d 507 (Me. 1989). · cites it 2× “) The agreement was a preprinted form prepared for use in workers’ compensation cases.”
Kennedy v. Brunswick Convalescent Ctr., 584 A.2d 678 (Me. 1991). · cites it 4× “Citing 39 M.R.S.A. § 71 (1964), [3] since repealed, Hartford *681 argues that the lump sum settlement with St.”
Ayotte v. United Servs., Inc., 567 A.2d 430 (Me. 1989). · cites it 3× “39 M.R.S.A. § 71 Under the “best interests” mandate of section 71, which applies to lump sum settlements under the Act, the Commission has regulated attorney fees consistently with our assertion in Willet v.”
Merrill v. Eastland Woolen Mills, Inc., 430 A.2d 557 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “39 M.R.S.A. § 71 (1978). 1 See P.L. 1915, ch.”
In Re LaBelle, 18 B.R. 169 (Bankr. D. Me. 1982). “In this proceeding the Trustee objects to the Debtor’s claimed exemption of his workers’ compensation benefits and, in particular, a lump sum benefit expected by the Debtor under the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act, Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 39 § 71. At the time of the filing of his…”
Cummings v. Cummings, 540 A.2d 778 (Me. 1988). “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 71 (Pamph.1987); 19 M.R.S.A.”
Connell v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 436 A.2d 408 (Me. 1981). “39 M.R.S.A. § 71 (1978). 4 . 39 M.R.S.A. § 58 (1978).”
Steeves v. Irwin, 233 A.2d 126 (Me. 1967). “31, § 28 (now 39 M.R.S.A. § 71) permitted. It was not a lump sum agreement in lieu of future weekly payments under a commission adjudication of employer liability.”
Soper v. St. Regis Paper Co., 411 A.2d 1004 (Me. 1980). “It argues that, aside from expenses specifically separated out, a lump-sum award is a capitalization of income by the terms of 39 M.R.S.A. § 71 (1978). Section 71 authorizes the Workers’ Compensation Commission to approve petitions for lump-sum awards: In any case where…”
Anania v. City of Portland, 394 A.2d 782 (Me. 1978). “” She “prepared the papers” by filling in the blanks on a “Form 28,” a form of petition for a commission order under 39 M.R.S.A. § 71 commuting all future compensation payments to a lump sum of $2,500.”
Bourque v. Frank X. Pomerleau, Inc., 472 A.2d 933 (Me. 1984). “39 M.R.S.A. § 71 (Supp.1983-1984) provides that “[u]pon payment of any lump sum approved by the commission, the employer shall be discharged from all further liability on account of the injury .”
Grant v. Dolan Transp., 609 A.2d 725 (Me. 1992). “Because we conclude that the terms of 39 M.R.S.A. § 71 (Pamph.1986) do not require 1) that Grant prove exceptional circumstances or 2) that she prove such circumstances by clear and convincing evidence, we vacate the decision of the Appellate Division and affirm the decision of…”
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.