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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 94 (2026)

Approval of compensation or vocational rehabilitation agreement; petition for award

✓ 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(REPEALED)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. 537, §47 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 788, §232 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 59, §3 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 437, §4 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 709, §3 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 479, §18 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 372, §A33 (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 22 cases, 1967–1998 · leading case: Dufault v. Midland-Ross of Canada, Ltd., 380 A.2d 200 (Me. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Libby v. Boise Cascade Corp., 1998 ME 89 (Me. 1998). “The inclusion of the word “responsibility” demonstrates the Legislature’s intent to permit petitions for protection when, as here, an employer has paid benefits in full, but has not accepted “responsibility” for so doing.”
Burbank v. H.D. Goodall Hosp., 656 A.2d 1209 (Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “39 M.R.S.A. § 94 (1989). 1 Because we conclude that in the absence of a dispute about compensation Burbank is not entitled to a factual determination regarding physical conditions that are sequelae of a compensable injury, we affirm the Commission’s decision.”
Carroll v. Celsius Contractors, 637 A.2d 111 (Me. 1994). “appeal a decision of the Appellate Division of the Workers’ Compensation Commission reversing a decision of the Commissioner that exposure to radiation constitutes an injury pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act, 39 M.R.S.A. § 94 (1989) (now 39-A M.R.S.A.”
Tompkins v. Wade & Searway Constr. Corp., 612 A.2d 874 (Me. 1992). “In contrast, *877 section 51-B(8) specifically distinguishes payments made by decision or agreement.”
Manzo v. Great N. Paper Co., 615 A.2d 605 (Me. 1992). “Specifically, we must determine whether Eugene Man-zo, diagnosed as having an occupational disease not yet incapacitating, has suffered a personal injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act for the purpose of awarding a protective decree pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 94 and fixing…”
DiPietro v. J.J. Nissen Baking Co., 616 A.2d 352 (Me. 1992). · cites it 3× “He argues that a petition for award provided for in 39 M.R.S.A. § 94 (1989) is a remedy provided exclusively for employees and that Nissen, as the employer, has no standing to bring such a petition.”
Maloney v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 601 A.2d 628 (Me. 1992). “39 M.R.S.A. § 94 governs the content and filing of petitions or memoranda of agreement with the Commission.”
Marsella v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 585 A.2d 802 (Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “In view of the Legislature's expressed concern lest the informal conference process become a cause of delay, it seems more likely to me that the Commission's failure to schedule an informal conference within the required period should free the employee to file a formal petition.”
Lamson v. Cent. Maine Power Co., 549 A.2d 377 (Me. 1988). “39 M.R.S.A. § 94 (Pamph. 1987). 2 Since CMP did not agree that Lam- *379 son’s hearing loss was work-related, Lam-son had to file a petition for award in order to establish that fact.”
Wilner Wood Prods. Co. v. Moyse, 466 A.2d 1257 (Me. 1983). “The statutory authority of the commission to approve compensation agreements under a variety of circumstances appears in 39 M.R.S.A. § 94 (1978). In all instances the commission must before giving its approval decide whether in fact the employer and the employee have reached an…”
Rines v. Scott, 432 A.2d 767 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “4 (39 M.R.S.A. § 94). If following an injury which causes no incapacity for work the employer and employee reach an agreement that the employee has received a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment, a memorandum of such agreement signed by the parties may…”
Leo v. Am. Host & Derrick Co., 438 A.2d 917 (Me. 1981). “For example, the employer may seek to enter into a new compensation agreement with the employee which reflects the change in capacity indicated by the results of investigation; see 39 M.R.S.A. §§ 94 and 100. Additionally, the employer may have resort to the procedures specified…”
Show all 22 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.