Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39-A

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 107

Liability of 3rd persons; election of employee; subrogation

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When an injury or death for which compensation or medical benefits are payable under this Act is sustained under circumstances creating in some person other than the employer a legal liability to pay damages, the injured employee may, at the employee's option, either claim the compensation and benefits or obtain damages from or proceed at law against that other person to recover damages.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
If the injured employee elects to claim compensation and benefits under this Act, any employer having paid the compensation or benefits or having become liable for compensation or benefits under any compensation payment scheme has a lien for the value of compensation paid on any damages subsequently recovered against the 3rd person liable for the injury. If the employee or the employee's beneficiary fails to pursue the remedy against the 3rd party within 30 days after written demand by the employer, the employer is subrogated to the rights of the injured employee and is entitled to enforce liability in its own name or in the name of the injured party, the accounting for the proceeds to be made on the basis provided.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
If the employee or the employee's beneficiary recovers damages from a 3rd person, the employee shall repay to the employer, out of the recovery against the 3rd person, the benefits paid by the employer under this Act, less the employer's proportionate share of cost of collection, including reasonable attorney's fees.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
If the employer recovers from a 3rd person damages in excess of the compensation and benefits paid or for which the employer has become liable, then any excess must be paid to the injured employee, less a proportionate share of the expenses and cost of actions or collection, including reasonable attorney's fees. Settlement of any such subrogation claims and the distribution of the proceeds therefrom must have the approval of the court in which the subrogation action is pending or to which it is returnable; or if not in suit, of the board. When the court in which the subrogation action is pending or to which it is returnable is in vacation, the judge of the court, or, if the action is pending in or returnable to the Superior Court, any Justice of the Superior Court has the power to approve the settlement of the action and the distribution of the proceeds therefrom. The beneficiary is entitled to reasonable notice and the opportunity to be present in person or by counsel at the approval proceeding.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1991, c. 885, §A8 (NEW). 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 (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: McKeeman v. Cianbro Corp.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McKeeman v. Cianbro Corp. (2002) me · cites it 6× “Warren intervened in Sharon’s action against Cianbro, and moved to enforce a workers’ compensation lien against Sharon pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 107 (2001). 3 The court ordered Sharon to repay S.”
ACS Recovery Services, Inc. v. Larry Griffi (2013) ca5 “22 ; Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 39-A, § 107; Md.Code Ann.”
Hunley v. Silver Furniture Mfg. Co. (2001) tenn “) (expressly excluding consortium from employer’s subrogation right but requiring court to determine amount of consortium); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 39-A § 107 (West, WESTLAW through 1999 Legis.”
DiCarlo v. Suffolk Construction Co., Inc. Professional Electrical Contractors of Connecticut (SJC-11854) Martin v. Angel (2016) mass “39, § 68 (repealed 1993) (insurer shall have “a lien for the value of compensation paid on any damages subsequently recovered against the third person liable for the injury”; language currently in Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 39-A, § 107 [2015]); N.”
Nichols v. Cantara & Sons (1995) me “Section 68 has been replaced by 39-A M.R.S.A. § 107 (Supp.1994), that contains virtually identical language.”
Steele v. Botticello (2011) me “§ 68 (1989) (now codified at 39-A M.R.S. § 107 (2010)). We concluded that the damages were not subject to the lien, recognizing that the Legislature created a separate right of the wife to bring a loss of consortium claim in her own name.”
Construction Services Workers' Compensation Group Self Insurance Trust v. Stevens (2010) me · cites it 13× “[¶ 4] In response to the settlement with Cedarapids, the Trust filed suit seeking a judgment declaring that Dennis must pay the Trust the amount of its statutory workers' compensation lien, see 39-A M.R.S. § 107 (2009), less the Trust's proportionate share of attorney fees and…”
Campbell v. School Administrative District No. 59 (1995) me · cites it 2× “See also 39-A M.R.S.A. § 107 (Supp.1994-95). 3 As the lien statute was first enacted in 1915, the employer was subrogated to the employee’s rights against the third-party tortfeasor and the employee was barred from bringing a civil action.”
DEGEN-HOGAN v. Bourdon (2004) med · cites it 3× “On April 4, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for approval of settlement and determination of workers’ compensation lien pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 107. The parties have agreed to settle the case for $21,000 and seek this Court’s approval not only of the settlement…”
Polak v. Riverside Marine Construction, Inc. (2014) mad “See 39-A M.R.S.A. § 107. Therefore, Po-lak has not shown that the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act provides the protection afforded to employers under the LHWCA.”
Laureen Fama v. Bob's LLC (2024) me “11 11 Under 39-A M.R.S. § 107 (2024), “[w]hen an injury or death for which compensation or medical benefits are payable” under the MWCA “is sustained under circumstances creating in some person other than the employer a legal liability to pay damages, the injured employee may,…”
Miller v. Spinnaker Coating (2011) me “§ 201(5) (2007); (2) an apportionment to apply the law in effect at the time of an injury occurring prior to 1993 pursuant to 39-A M.”
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.