Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 96-A

Procedure for filing petitions

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1981, c. 199, §2 (NEW). 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 3 cases, 1988–1994 · leading case: Harding v. Sheridan D. Smith, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harding v. Sheridan D. Smith, Inc. (1994) me “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 96-A(1) (1987), repealed and replaced by P.”
Lamson v. Central Maine Power Co. (1988) me “39 M.R.S.A. § 96-A(l) (Pamph.1987). 3 Prefatory to the hearing on his petition, Lamson orally amended his petition for award, making clear that the sole relief he was seeking was to establish that his hearing loss was a work-related injury.”
DiPietro v. J.J. Nissen Baking Co. (1992) me “Although a petition for award is a remedy usually used by an employee to determine the employee’s right to benefits resulting from a work-related injury and is not a petition normally filed by an employer, 2 39 M.R.S.A. § 96-A (1989) provides that “[a]ny interested party may…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 96-A(1) — 1 case
Harding v. Sheridan D. Smith, Inc. (1994) me “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 96-A(1) (1987), repealed and replaced by P.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 96-A(l) — 1 case
Lamson v. Central Maine Power Co. (1988) me “39 M.R.S.A. § 96-A(l) (Pamph.1987). 3 Prefatory to the hearing on his petition, Lamson orally amended his petition for award, making clear that the sole relief he was seeking was to establish that his hearing loss was a work-related injury.”
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.