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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 94-A (2026)

Commission actions

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1983, c. 479, §19 (NEW). PL 1983, c. 682, §7 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 372, §A34 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 615, §A42 (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 6 cases, 1986–1994 · leading case: Marsella v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 585 A.2d 802 (Me. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marsella v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 585 A.2d 802 (Me. 1991). · cites it 6× “The Court also suggests that requiring the employer to bear the cost of "unforeseen administrative delay" is somehow inconsistent with our duty to construe the Workers' Compensation Act in neutral fashion, because 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(3) states that the Act "is not to be given a…”
Li v. C.N. Brown Co., 645 A.2d 606 (Me. 1994). · cites it 2× “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(3) (1989). See also 39-A M.”
Stickles v. United Parcel Serv., 554 A.2d 1176 (Me. 1989). · cites it 2× “” *1180 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(2)(A) & (B) (Pamph. 1988).”
Rowe v. Chapman Trucking, 629 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1993). · cites it 2× “" 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(3) (1989). The interpretation of a single provision of the Act cannot take place in isolation.”
Daigle v. Daigle, 505 A.2d 778 (Me. 1986). · cites it 2× “2d at 942 ; see 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(3) (1984); [2] Canning v.”
DiPietro v. J.J. Nissen Baking Co., 616 A.2d 352 (Me. 1992). “1989); 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(1) (1989). The employer’s failure to file the first report of injury works a disadvantage to the employee that justifies the delayed running of the statute.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 94-A(1) — 1 case
DiPietro v. J.J. Nissen Baking Co., 616 A.2d 352 (Me. 1992). “1989); 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(1) (1989). The employer’s failure to file the first report of injury works a disadvantage to the employee that justifies the delayed running of the statute.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 94-A(2)(A) — 1 case
Stickles v. United Parcel Serv., 554 A.2d 1176 (Me. 1989). “” *1180 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(2)(A) & (B) (Pamph. 1988).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 94-A(3) — 4 cases
Marsella v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 585 A.2d 802 (Me. 1991). “The Court also suggests that requiring the employer to bear the cost of "unforeseen administrative delay" is somehow inconsistent with our duty to construe the Workers' Compensation Act in neutral fashion, because 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(3) states that the Act "is not to be given a…”
Li v. C.N. Brown Co., 645 A.2d 606 (Me. 1994). “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(3) (1989). See also 39-A M.”
Rowe v. Chapman Trucking, 629 A.2d 1224 (Me. 1993). “" 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(3) (1989). The interpretation of a single provision of the Act cannot take place in isolation.”
Daigle v. Daigle, 505 A.2d 778 (Me. 1986). “2d at 942 ; see 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(3) (1984); [2] Canning v.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 94-A(l) — 1 case
Stickles v. United Parcel Serv., 554 A.2d 1176 (Me. 1989). “” *1180 39 M.R.S.A. § 94-A(2)(A) & (B) (Pamph. 1988).”
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.