Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 211 (2026)

Maximum benefit levels

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective January 1, 1993, the maximum weekly benefit payable under section 212, 213 or 215 is $441 or 90% of state average weekly wage, whichever is higher. Beginning on July 1, 1994, the maximum benefit level is $441 or 90% of the state average weekly wage as adjusted annually utilizing the state average weekly wage as determined by the Department of Labor, whichever is higher. If the injured employee's date of injury is on or after January 1, 2013, the maximum benefit level is $441 or 100% of the state average weekly wage as adjusted annually utilizing the state average weekly wage as determined by the Department of Labor, whichever is higher. If the injured employee's date of injury is on or after January 1, 2020, the maximum benefit level is $441 or 125% of the state average weekly wage as adjusted annually utilizing the state average weekly wage as determined by the Department of Labor, whichever is higher. [PL 2019, c. 344, §4 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1991, c. 885, §A8 (NEW). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF). PL 1995, c. 560, §G22 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 647, §3 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 344, §4 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1994–2016 · leading case: Brenda L. Freeman v. NewPage Corp., 2016 ME 45 (Me. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brenda L. Freeman v. NewPage Corp., 2016 ME 45 (Me. 2016). · cites it 4× “[¶ 3] Considering, the stipulated facts, the hearing officer concluded that Freeman was entitled to the protection of the Workers’ Compensation Act for the 2011 injury but, applying 39-A M.R.S. § 211 (2011), 1 also concluded that she was ineligible for compensation beyond the…”

Alexander v. Portland Nat. Gas, 2001 ME 129 (Me. 2001). · cites it 4× “Alexander contends that, because his average weekly wage was calculated at over $2,000 a week, he would be limited to the maximum level of benefits even if he returned to work earning $10 an hour for a forty-hour work week.”

Ray v. Carland Constr., Inc., 1997 ME 206 (Me. 1997). · cites it 2× “Employees with pre-1993 injuries who are reinjured after 1993 could not only lose their entitlement to an inflation adjustment and be subject to a shorter time period for the receipt of benefits, but could also, arguably, lose their right to statutory maximum benefit levels,…”

Damon v. S.D. Warren Co., 2010 ME 24 (Me. 2010). “For injuries incurred before January 1, 1993, the provisions of the current Act apply, except that the applicable provisions of former title 39 apply in place of 39-A M.R.S. §§ 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 221 (the coordination of benefits provision), 306 and 325.”

Baker v. S.D. Warren Co., 2010 ME 87 (Me. 2010). “For injuries incurred before January 1, 1993, the provisions of the current Act apply, except that the applicable provisions of former title 39 apply in place of 39-A M.R.S. §§ 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 221 (the coordination of benefits provision), 306, and 325.”

Monaghan v. Jordan's Meats, 2007 ME 100 (Me. 2007). “39-A M.R.S. §§ 211, 212, 213 (2006). 2 . The Legislature has, from time to time, codified various aspects of the work search rule.”

Hanson v. S.D. Warren Co., 2010 ME 51 (Me. 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 213 (2009), to the statutory maximum, pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 211 (2009), before coordinating the workers’ compensation benefit with his pension, pursuant to 39-A M.”

Marchand v. E. Welding Co., 641 A.2d 190 (Me. 1994). “1, 1993), codified as 39-A M.R.S.A. § 211. This maximum benefit level limits the benefits payable to an incapacitated, high wage earning employee to an amount less than two-thirds of that employee’s average weekly wages.”

Dudley v. Burns & Roe Constr. Grp., 784 A.2d 511 (Me. 2001). · cites it 2× “The hearing officer concluded that the employee, whose average weekly wage exceeds the statutorily established benefit cap, is entitled to an annual adjustment in benefits as the benefit cap is adjusted pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 211 (2001). The employer contends that section…”

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.