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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 93 (2026)

Investigations; subpoenas; depositions

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1969, c. 386 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 16 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 53 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 319 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 544, §§136,137 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 788, §231 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 302, §2 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 612, §§11-13 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 696, §406 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 109 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 541, §A281 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 479, §17 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 372, §A32 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 559, §B40 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 736, §59 (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 7 cases, 1971–1995 · leading case: Armistead v. C & M Transp., Inc., 49 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Armistead v. C & M Transp., Inc., 49 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 1995). “See 39 M.R.S.A. §§ 93; 103-E. The Commission itself has no general equity powers.”
Leo v. Am. Host & Derrick Co., 438 A.2d 917 (Me. 1981). “Title 39 M.R.S.A. § 93(5) permits the Commissioner to serve upon a person disobeying a lawful order an order requiring that person to appear before the Superior Court to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt.”
Cote v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Maine, Inc., 432 A.2d 1301 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “Concerning Exhibit 5, the Commissioner ruled that the report that had not been noticed for hearing was inadmissible under 39 M.R.S.A. § 93(3) (Supp.1980-81), and that the other reports were inadmissible because they were merely cumulative of Dr.”
Coty v. Town of Millinocket, 444 A.2d 355 (Me. 1982). “39 M.R.S.A. § 93(5); see Leo, 438 A.2d at 927 n.”
Hayford v. Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 447 A.2d 480 (Me. 1982). “, a neurological surgeon, dated July 16, 1980, was submitted by the employer pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 93(3). This surgeon had treated the employee during a two week period sometime between April 3, 1980, and June 6, 1980.”
Chaples v. Gilco, Inc., 280 A.2d 546 (Me. 1971). “) There is no statutory authority for ordering the payment of such medical services obtained from a physician not on the panel selected pursuant to 39 M.”
Mahler v. Tampax, Inc., 391 A.2d 354 (Me. 1978). “” 39 M.R.S.A. § 93(3). Dr. Greene did not testify and the record leaves uncertain whether the letter was properly admitted, since Miss Mahler’s counsel did not formally consent to its introduction.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 93(3) — 4 cases
Cote v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Maine, Inc., 432 A.2d 1301 (Me. 1981). “Concerning Exhibit 5, the Commissioner ruled that the report that had not been noticed for hearing was inadmissible under 39 M.R.S.A. § 93(3) (Supp.1980-81), and that the other reports were inadmissible because they were merely cumulative of Dr.”
Hayford v. Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 447 A.2d 480 (Me. 1982). “, a neurological surgeon, dated July 16, 1980, was submitted by the employer pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 93(3). This surgeon had treated the employee during a two week period sometime between April 3, 1980, and June 6, 1980.”
Chaples v. Gilco, Inc., 280 A.2d 546 (Me. 1971). “) There is no statutory authority for ordering the payment of such medical services obtained from a physician not on the panel selected pursuant to 39 M.”
Mahler v. Tampax, Inc., 391 A.2d 354 (Me. 1978). “” 39 M.R.S.A. § 93(3). Dr. Greene did not testify and the record leaves uncertain whether the letter was properly admitted, since Miss Mahler’s counsel did not formally consent to its introduction.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 93(5) — 2 cases
Leo v. Am. Host & Derrick Co., 438 A.2d 917 (Me. 1981). “Title 39 M.R.S.A. § 93(5) permits the Commissioner to serve upon a person disobeying a lawful order an order requiring that person to appear before the Superior Court to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt.”
Coty v. Town of Millinocket, 444 A.2d 355 (Me. 1982). “39 M.R.S.A. § 93(5); see Leo, 438 A.2d at 927 n.”
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.