Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 209 (2026)

Medical fees; reimbursement levels

✓ 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(REPEALED)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 1991, c. 885, §A8 (NEW). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF). PL 2007, c. 240, Pt. JJJ, §5 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 311, §2 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 338, §3 (RP).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1998–2011 · leading case: Fernald v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 946 A.2d 395 (Me. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fernald v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 946 A.2d 395 (Me. 2008). · cites it 12× “DISCUSSION [¶ 6] The employers contend that in the absence of a Board-promulgated fee schedule for facility charges, 39-A M.R.S. § 209 (2007) authorizes them to challenge the provider’s assertion of what is the “usual and customary charge” through discovery of the provider’s…”

Breton v. Travelers Ins., 147 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 1998). “” Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 39-A, § 209. In exchange for this no-fault liability, employers are granted immunity from common law or statutory actions “involving personal injuries” covered by the Act, see id.”

Doucette v. Pathways, Inc., 759 A.2d 718 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “Instead the two doctors were paid individual medical fees to which they were entitled pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A § 209 (Pamph. 1999). 3 Section 209 makes no provision for reimbursement of attorney’s fees out of the medical fees.”

St. Mary's Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Bath Iron Works, 2009 ME 92 (Me. 2009). · cites it 5× “” 39-A M.R.S. § 209(1). However, the Legislature addressed those concerns by authorizing the Workers’ Compensation Board, pursuant to 39-A M.”

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). · cites it 6× “§§ 209(1) & (2) (2007). The Court affirmed the hearing officer's decisions.”

Boucher v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2011). · cites it 2× “39-A M.R.S. § 209(2) (2010) (emphasis added).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 209(1) — 3 cases

Fernald v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 946 A.2d 395 (Me. 2008). “DISCUSSION [¶ 6] The employers contend that in the absence of a Board-promulgated fee schedule for facility charges, 39-A M.R.S. § 209 (2007) authorizes them to challenge the provider’s assertion of what is the “usual and customary charge” through discovery of the provider’s…”

St. Mary's Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Bath Iron Works, 2009 ME 92 (Me. 2009). “” 39-A M.R.S. § 209(1). However, the Legislature addressed those concerns by authorizing the Workers’ Compensation Board, pursuant to 39-A M.”

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “§§ 209(1) & (2) (2007). The Court affirmed the hearing officer's decisions.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 209(1)(A) — 1 case

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “§§ 209(1) & (2) (2007). The Court affirmed the hearing officer's decisions.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 209(2) — 5 cases

Doucette v. Pathways, Inc., 759 A.2d 718 (Me. 2000). “Instead the two doctors were paid individual medical fees to which they were entitled pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A § 209 (Pamph. 1999). 3 Section 209 makes no provision for reimbursement of attorney’s fees out of the medical fees.”

Boucher v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “39-A M.R.S. § 209(2) (2010) (emphasis added).”

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “§§ 209(1) & (2) (2007). The Court affirmed the hearing officer's decisions.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 209(3) — 2 cases

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 209(l)(A) — 1 case

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “§§ 209(1) & (2) (2007). The Court affirmed the hearing officer's decisions.”

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.