Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 206 (2026)

Duties and rights of parties as to medical and other services; cost

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An employee sustaining a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment or disabled by occupational disease is entitled to reasonable and proper medical, surgical and hospital services, nursing, medicines, and mechanical, surgical aids, as needed, paid for by the employer.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
1.  Employer selection.  The employer initially has the right to select for the employee a health care provider authorized to practice as such under the laws of the State.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
2.  Employee selection.  After 10 days from the inception of health care under subsection 1, the employee may select a different health care provider by giving to the employer the name of the health care provider and a statement of intention to treat with the health care provider. The employer may file a petition objecting to the named health care provider selected by the employee and setting forth reasons for the objection. The issue of the health care provider must be set for mediation pursuant to section 313. If the objection is not resolved through mediation, after notice to all parties and a prompt hearing by an administrative law judge, the administrative law judge may order one of the following:  
A. If the employer can not show cause why the employee should not commence or continue treatment with the health care provider of the employee's choice, the administrative law judge shall order that the employer is responsible for payment for treatment received from the health care provider; or   [PL 2015, c. 297, §6 (AMD).]
B. If the employer can show cause why the employee should not commence or continue treatment with the health care provider of the employee's choice, the administrative law judge shall order that the employer is not responsible and that the employee is responsible for payment for treatment received from the health care provider from the date the order is mailed.   [PL 2015, c. 297, §6 (AMD).]
[PL 2015, c. 297, §6 (AMD).]
3.  Limitation.  Once an employee receives treatment from a health care provider pursuant to subsection 2, the employee may not change health care providers more than once without approval from the employer or the board.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
4.  Specialist treatment.  This section does not limit an employee's right to be treated by a specialist when a referral is made by the employee's health care provider. Once an employee has begun treatment with the specialist, the employee may not seek treatment from a different specialist in the same specialty without prior approval from the employer or the board.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
5.  Chiropractic care.  An employee sustaining a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment, provided the injury relates to the scope of a chiropractor's practice, as defined and regulated by law, is entitled to chiropractic services as provided by Title 32, chapter 9. A duly licensed chiropractor is competent to testify before the board.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
6.  Podiatric care.  An employee sustaining personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment, provided the injury relates to the foot, is entitled to an examination, diagnosis and treatment for that injury from a podiatrist who is licensed in the State and who has been granted the degree of Doctor of Podiatric Medicine by an accredited school of podiatry recognized by the Council of Education of the American Podiatry Association. This examination may include diagnostic x rays. Such a podiatrist is competent to testify before the board.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
7.  Employee and employer duties.  When any services are procured or aids are required by the employee, it is the employee's duty to see that the employer is given prompt notice of that procurement or requirement. The employer shall then make prompt payment for them to the provider or supplier or reimburse the employee, in accordance with section 205, subsection 4, if the costs are necessary and adequate and the charges reasonable, except that it is presumed that, in a jurisdiction outside the United States that has a socialized medical program, payment of the costs will be borne by the medical program and the employer is not responsible for those costs under this section unless the socialized medical program has made payment for services or aids and requests reimbursement from the employer for the actual amounts paid.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
8.  Physical aids.  The employer shall furnish artificial limbs, eyes, teeth, eyeglasses, hearing aids, orthopedic devices and other physical aids made necessary by the injury and shall replace or renew them when necessary from wear and tear or physical change of the employee. Damage and destruction to artificial limbs, eyes, teeth, eyeglasses, hearing aids, orthopedic devices and other physical aids in the course of and arising out of employment is considered an injury for the purposes of this Act. In case such physical aids in use by the employee at the time of the injury are themselves injured or destroyed, the board in its discretion may require that they be repaired or replaced by the employer.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
9.  Medical reports.  The employee or the employee's counsel shall serve upon the employer or opposing counsel, within 7 days of the date of receipt by the employee or counsel, complete copies of any medical reports or statements relating to any treatment or examination described in this section. The employer, carrier or their counsel shall serve upon the employee or opposing counsel, within 7 days of the receipt by the employer, carrier or counsel, complete copies of any medical reports or statements relating to any treatment or examination alleged by the employee or the employee's counsel to be covered by this section.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
10.  Treatment by prayer or spiritual means.  Upon request of an employee, the employer or carrier may establish a program to pay for treatment by prayer or spiritual means by an accredited practitioner.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
11.  Generic drugs.  Providers shall prescribe generic drugs whenever medically acceptable for the treatment of an injury or disease for which compensation is claimed. An employee shall purchase generic drugs for the treatment of an injury or disease for which compensation is claimed if the prescribing provider indicates that generic drugs may be used and if generic drugs are available at the time and place of purchase under subsection 11‑A. If an employee purchases a nongeneric drug when the prescribing provider has indicated that a generic drug may be used and a generic drug is available at the time and place of purchase, the insurer or self-insurer is required to reimburse the employee for the cost of the generic drug only. For purposes of this subsection, "generic drug" has the same meaning found in Title 32, section 13702‑A, subsection 14.  
[PL 2013, c. 164, §1 (AMD).]
11-A.  Pharmacy choice.  An employee who has been prescribed drugs for the treatment of an injury or disease for which compensation is claimed has the right to select the provider, pharmacy or pharmacist for dispensing and filling the prescription for the drugs.  
For purposes of this subsection, "drug" has the same meaning as in Title 32, section 13702‑A, subsection 11.  
[PL 2013, c. 164, §2 (NEW).]
12.  Petition.  When there is any disagreement as to the proper costs of the services or aids, the periods during which they must be furnished, or the apportionment of the costs among the parties, any interested person may file a petition with the board for the determination of the issues.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
13.  Employee not liable.  Except as ordered pursuant to subsection 2, paragraph B, an employee is not liable for any portion of the cost of any provided medical or health care services under this section.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
14.  Employer not liable.  An employer is not liable under this Act for charges for health care services to an injured employee in excess of those established under section 209‑A, except upon petition as provided. The board shall allow charges in excess of those provided under section 209‑A against the employer if the provider satisfactorily demonstrates to the board that the services were extraordinary or that the provider incurred extraordinary costs in treating the employee as compared to those reasonably contemplated for the services provided.  
[PL 2011, c. 338, §1 (AMD).]
15.  Forms; compliance.  The Superintendent of Insurance shall prescribe medical and health care expense forms for the purpose of collecting information as required by Title 24‑A, section 2384‑B. In the event the provider fails to properly complete and submit the prescribed form or to follow any fee schedule approved by the board, the insurer or self-insurer may withhold payment of medical and health care fees and the insurer or self-insurer is not required to file a notice of controversy but may simply notify the provider of the failure. In the case of a dispute, any interested party may petition the board to resolve the dispute.  
[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). PL 2001, c. 60, §1 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 695, Pt. B, §24 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 338, §1 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 164, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 297, §6 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1997–2018 · leading case: Gaetan H. Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC, 2018 ME 77 (Me. 2018).
Gaetan H. Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC, 2018 ME 77 (Me. 2018). · cites it 4× “§ 2426(2)(A) (2017); (2) that medical marijuana is not a “reasonable and proper” treatment pursuant to the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act, 39-A M.R.S. § 206 (2017); and (3) that the hearing officer erred by rejecting the findings of the independent medical examiner, see id.”
Brawn v. Gloria's Country Inn, 1997 ME 191 (Me. 1997). · cites it 6× “39-A M.R.S.A § 206 (Supp.1996). 1 The Board also denied Brawn’s petition seeking payment for the services of a part-time personal care assistant who performed housekeeping services in the course of her duties.”
Griffiths v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 943 A.2d 242 (Pa. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 39-A, § 206. The obligation was further defined to include “artificial limbs, eyes, teeth, eyeglasses, hearing aids, orthopedic devices and other physical aids made necessary by the injury.”
Fernald v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 946 A.2d 395 (Me. 2008). · cites it 4× “7 39-A M.R.S. §§ 206, 209(2) (2007). [¶ 16] CMO stipulated that it accepts discounted payments from some organizations and entities for particular services.”
Lydon v. Sprinkler Servs., 841 A.2d 793 (Me. 2004). “39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 206, 312(2) (2001 & Supp.”
Cust v. Univ. of Maine, 2001 ME 29 (Me. 2001). “See 39-A M.R.S.A. § 206 (Pamph.2000). 3 . We stated: The basic entitlement to workers' compensation benefits under the Act, 39-A M.”
Laskey v. SD Warren Co., 2001 ME 103 (Me. 2001). “In addition to examinations for purposes of litigation, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 206 (2001), provides for treatment of employees for their work-related injuries.”
Doughty v. Work Opportunities Unlimited/Leddy Grp., 33 A.3d 410 (Me. 2011). “Doughty contends on appeal that the hearing officer was compelled to find that Work Opportunities discriminated against him for asserting his right under the Workers' Compensation Act to treat with a medical provider of his choice, pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 206(2) (2010). The…”
Dahms v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Maine, 782 A.2d 774 (Me. 2001). “885, §§ A-7, A-8 (codified at 39-A M.R.S.A § 206 (2001)), for purposes of tolling the two-year statute.”
Joyce v. S.D. Warren Co., 759 A.2d 712 (Me. 2000). “885, §§ A-7, A-8 (codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. § 206 (Pamph.1999)). [¶ 17] Section 52 provides the basic entitlement to employer payment of medical expenses, and provides, in pertinent part: § 52.”
St. Mary's Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Bath Iron Works, 2009 ME 92 (Me. 2009). · cites it 4× “[¶ 13] Title 39-A M.R.S. § 206 governs the parties’ obligations to pay for medical and related services.”
Moreau v. S.D. Warren Co., 2000 ME 62 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “" NOTES [1] Former section 52 provides, in pertinent part: § 52 Duties and rights of parties as to medical and other services; cost An employee sustaining a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment or is disabled by occupational disease shall be…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 206(12) — 2 cases
St. Mary's Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Bath Iron Works, 2009 ME 92 (Me. 2009). “[¶ 13] Title 39-A M.R.S. § 206 governs the parties’ obligations to pay for medical and related services.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 206(2) — 1 case
Doughty v. Work Opportunities Unlimited/Leddy Grp., 33 A.3d 410 (Me. 2011). “Doughty contends on appeal that the hearing officer was compelled to find that Work Opportunities discriminated against him for asserting his right under the Workers' Compensation Act to treat with a medical provider of his choice, pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 206(2) (2010). The…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 206(7) — 1 case
Fernald v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 946 A.2d 395 (Me. 2008). “7 39-A M.R.S. §§ 206, 209(2) (2007). [¶ 16] CMO stipulated that it accepts discounted payments from some organizations and entities for particular services.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 206(8) — 3 cases
Griffiths v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 943 A.2d 242 (Pa. 2008). “” Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 39-A, § 206. The obligation was further defined to include “artificial limbs, eyes, teeth, eyeglasses, hearing aids, orthopedic devices and other physical aids made necessary by the injury.”
Brawn v. Gloria's Country Inn, 1997 ME 191 (Me. 1997). “39-A M.R.S.A § 206 (Supp.1996). 1 The Board also denied Brawn’s petition seeking payment for the services of a part-time personal care assistant who performed housekeeping services in the course of her duties.”
Fogleman v. Duke City Auto. Servs., 2000 NMCA 039 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000).
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.