Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 212 (2026)

Compensation for total incapacity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Total incapacity; date of injury prior to January 1, 2013.  If the injured employee's date of injury is prior to January 1, 2013, while the incapacity for work resulting from the injury is total, the employer shall pay the injured employee a weekly compensation equal to 80% of the employee's after-tax average weekly wage, but not more than the maximum benefit under section 211. Compensation must be paid for the duration of the incapacity.  
Any employee who is able to perform full-time remunerative work in the ordinary competitive labor market in the State, regardless of the availability of such work in and around that employee's community, is not eligible for compensation under this section, but may be eligible for compensation under section 213.  
[PL 2011, c. 647, §4 (AMD).]
1-A.  Total incapacity; date of injury on or after January 1, 2013.  If the injured employee's date of injury is on or after January 1, 2013, while the incapacity for work resulting from the injury is total, the employer shall pay the injured employee a weekly compensation equal to 2/3 of the employee's gross average weekly wages, earnings or salary, but not more than the maximum benefit under section 211. Compensation must be paid for the duration of the incapacity.  
Any employee who is able to perform full-time remunerative work in the ordinary competitive labor market in the State, regardless of the availability of such work in and around that employee's community, is not eligible for compensation under this section, but may be eligible for compensation under section 213.  
[PL 2011, c. 647, §5 (NEW).]
2.  Presumption of total incapacity.  For the purposes of this Act, in the following cases it is conclusively presumed for 800 weeks from the date of injury that the injury resulted in permanent total incapacity and that the employee is unable to perform full-time remunerative work in the ordinary competitive labor market in the State. Thereafter the question of permanent and total incapacity must be determined in accordance with the facts, as they then exist. The cases are:  
A. Total and permanent loss of sight of both eyes;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
B. Actual loss of both legs or both feet at or above the ankle;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
C. Actual loss of both arms or both hands at or above the wrist;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
D. Actual loss of any 2 of the members or faculties in paragraph A, B or C;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
E. Permanent and complete paralysis of both legs or both arms or one leg and one arm;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
F. Incurable insanity or imbecility; and   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
G. Permanent and total loss of industrial use of both legs or both hands or both arms or one leg and one arm.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
For the purpose of this subsection such permanency may be determined no later than 30 days before the expiration of 500 weeks from the date of injury.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
3.  Specific loss benefits.  In cases included in the following schedule, the incapacity is considered to continue for the period specified, and the compensation due is calculated based on the date of injury subject to the maximum benefit set in section 211. Compensation under this subsection is available only for the actual loss of the following:  
A. Thumb, 65 weeks;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
B. First finger, 38 weeks;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
C. Second finger, 33 weeks;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
D. Third finger, 22 weeks;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
E. Fourth finger, 16 weeks;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
F. The loss of the first phalange of the thumb, or of any finger, is considered to be equal to the loss of 1/2 of that thumb or finger, and compensation is 1/2 of the amounts specified in paragraphs A to E. The loss of more than one phalange is considered as the loss of the entire finger or thumb. The amount received for more than one finger may not exceed the amount provided in this schedule for the loss of a hand;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
G. Great toe, 33 weeks;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
H. A toe other than the great toe, 11 weeks. The loss of the first phalange of any toe is considered to be equal to the loss of 1/2 of that toe, and compensation is 1/2 of the amounts specified in paragraphs F and G. The loss of more than one phalange is considered the loss of the entire toe;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
I. Hand, 215 weeks. An amputation between the elbow and wrist that is 6 or more inches below the elbow is considered a hand;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
J. Arm, 269 weeks. An amputation above the point specified in paragraph I is considered an arm;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
K. Foot, 162 weeks. An amputation between the knee and the foot 7 or more inches below the tibial table, or plateau, is considered a foot;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
L. Leg, 215 weeks. An amputation above the point specified in paragraph K is considered a leg; and   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
M. Eye, 162 weeks. Eighty percent loss of vision of one eye constitutes the total loss of that eye.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
[PL 2011, c. 647, §6 (AMD).]
4.  Annual adjustment.  For dates of injury on or after January 1, 2020, beginning after the receipt of 260 weeks of benefits under this section, for an injury or injuries that contribute to benefits under this section, weekly compensation benefits under this section must be adjusted annually. The adjustment is equal to the actual percentage increase or decrease in the state average weekly wage, as computed by the Department of Labor, for the previous year or 5%, whichever is less.  
The annual adjustment must be made after the receipt of 260 weeks of benefits under this section and on each succeeding anniversary date of the injury, except that when the effect of the maximum benefit under section 211 is to reduce the amount of compensation to which the claimant would otherwise be entitled, the adjustment must be made annually on July 1st.  
[PL 2019, c. 344, §5 (NEW).]
In case of the loss of one member while compensation is being paid for the loss of another member, compensation must be paid for the loss of the 2nd member for the period provided in this section. Payments for the loss of the 2nd member begin at the conclusion of the payments for the first member.   [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 2011, c. 647, §§4-6 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 344, §5 (AMD).
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 37 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Saucier v. Portland, 932 A.2d 1178 (Me. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Saucier v. Portland, 932 A.2d 1178 (Me. 2007). · cites it 9× “1, 1993) (codified at 39-A M.R.S. § 212 (2006)). The Statement of Fact that accompanied the enactment of 39-A M.”
Alexander v. Portland Nat. Gas, 2001 ME 129 (Me. 2001). · cites it 10× “§ 213, and total incapacity benefits have no such limitation, see 39-A M.R.S.A. § 212, the applicable statute can have important long-term consequences to the employer and employee.”
Brenda L. Freeman v. NewPage Corp., 2016 ME 45 (Me. 2016). · cites it 3× “” 39-A M.R.S. §§ 212(1), 213(1), 215(1) (2011).”
Ray v. Carland Constr., Inc., 1997 ME 206 (Me. 1997). · cites it 6× “885, §§ A-7, A-8 (codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. § 212 (Supp.1996)). Because it was impossible to determine the exact contribution of each injury to McDonald's continuing incapacity, the former Workers' Compensation Commission divided the responsibility equally between the two…”
Mitton v. Verizon, 38 A.3d 1285 (Me. 2012). · cites it 8× “In a 1997 decree, the Board awarded him ongoing total incapacity benefits pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 212(1) (2011). In 2003, the Board awarded him 800 weeks of total incapacity benefits for the permanent and total loss of industrial use of one leg and one arm, pursuant to 39-A M.”
Pratt v. Fraser Paper, Ltd., 2001 ME 102 (Me. 2001). · cites it 4× “885, §§ A-7, A-8 (codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. § 212 (2001)), but reduced that award by the 20% of the employee's total incapacity which the Hearing Officer attributed to a subsequent nonwork-related heart attack.”
Jensen v. S.D. Warren Co., 2009 ME 35 (Me. 2009). · cites it 3× “§ 212 when the employee proves both (1) the unavailability of work within the employee’s local community, and (2) the physical inability to perform full-time work in the statewide labor market, regardless of availability). Title 39-A M.”
Dunson v. South Portland Hous. Auth., 2003 ME 16 (Me. 2003). · cites it 4× “885, §§ A-7, A-8 (codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. § 212 (2001)). 1 Although we agree with the Housing Authority that the hearing officer erred in failing to apply an inflation adjustment for that portion of Dunson’s incapacity attributable to her 1991 injury, see 39-A M.”
David L. Scott Jr. v. Fraser Papers, Inc., 2013 ME 32 (Me. 2013). · cites it 8× “39-A M.R.S. § 212 (2011). 5 That is, specific loss benefits cannot offset other specific loss benefits.”
Morse v. Fleet Fin. Grp., 2001 ME 142 (Me. 2001). · cites it 2× “[¶ 1] Fleet Financial Group appeals from a decision of a hearing officer of the Workers’ Compensation Board, granting an employee’s petition for award and awarding benefits for total incapacity pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 212 (2001). We agree with Fleet that, absent a finding of…”
Steve L. Michaud v. Caribou Ford-Mercury, Inc., 2024 ME 74 (Me. 2024). · cites it 4× “2d 1256 (distinguishing between “physical loss” and “loss of function” of a finger and concluding that section 212(3) generally requires amputation of the member); see also 39-A M.”
Doucette v. Washburn, 2001 ME 38 (Me. 2001). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 212 (Pamph, 2000). See also Boehm v.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 212(1) — 7 cases
Brenda L. Freeman v. NewPage Corp., 2016 ME 45 (Me. 2016). “” 39-A M.R.S. §§ 212(1), 213(1), 215(1) (2011).”
Alexander v. Portland Nat. Gas, 2001 ME 129 (Me. 2001). “§ 213, and total incapacity benefits have no such limitation, see 39-A M.R.S.A. § 212, the applicable statute can have important long-term consequences to the employer and employee.”
Mitton v. Verizon, 38 A.3d 1285 (Me. 2012). “In a 1997 decree, the Board awarded him ongoing total incapacity benefits pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 212(1) (2011). In 2003, the Board awarded him 800 weeks of total incapacity benefits for the permanent and total loss of industrial use of one leg and one arm, pursuant to 39-A M.”
Archer v. MDS Bldg., Inc., 841 A.2d 801 (Me. 2004).
Roy v. Bath Iron Works, 952 A.2d 965 (Me. 2008).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 212(2) — 4 cases
Saucier v. Portland, 932 A.2d 1178 (Me. 2007). “1, 1993) (codified at 39-A M.R.S. § 212 (2006)). The Statement of Fact that accompanied the enactment of 39-A M.”
Mitton v. Verizon, 38 A.3d 1285 (Me. 2012). “In a 1997 decree, the Board awarded him ongoing total incapacity benefits pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 212(1) (2011). In 2003, the Board awarded him 800 weeks of total incapacity benefits for the permanent and total loss of industrial use of one leg and one arm, pursuant to 39-A M.”
Abbott v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 53, 2000 ME 201 (Me. 2000).
Roy v. Bath Iron Works, 952 A.2d 965 (Me. 2008).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 212(2)(A) — 1 case
Mitton v. Verizon, 38 A.3d 1285 (Me. 2012). “In a 1997 decree, the Board awarded him ongoing total incapacity benefits pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 212(1) (2011). In 2003, the Board awarded him 800 weeks of total incapacity benefits for the permanent and total loss of industrial use of one leg and one arm, pursuant to 39-A M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 212(2)(G) — 3 cases
Mitton v. Verizon, 38 A.3d 1285 (Me. 2012). “In a 1997 decree, the Board awarded him ongoing total incapacity benefits pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 212(1) (2011). In 2003, the Board awarded him 800 weeks of total incapacity benefits for the permanent and total loss of industrial use of one leg and one arm, pursuant to 39-A M.”
Saucier v. Portland, 932 A.2d 1178 (Me. 2007). “1, 1993) (codified at 39-A M.R.S. § 212 (2006)). The Statement of Fact that accompanied the enactment of 39-A M.”
Downing v. Dep't of Transp., 34 A.3d 1150 (Me. 2012).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 212(3) — 5 cases
David L. Scott Jr. v. Fraser Papers, Inc., 2013 ME 32 (Me. 2013). “39-A M.R.S. § 212 (2011). 5 That is, specific loss benefits cannot offset other specific loss benefits.”
Ray v. Carland Constr., Inc., 1997 ME 206 (Me. 1997). “885, §§ A-7, A-8 (codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. § 212 (Supp.1996)). Because it was impossible to determine the exact contribution of each injury to McDonald's continuing incapacity, the former Workers' Compensation Commission divided the responsibility equally between the two…”
Clark v. Int'l Paper Co., 638 A.2d 65 (Me. 1994).
Archer v. MDS Bldg., Inc., 841 A.2d 801 (Me. 2004).
Boehm v. Am. Falcon Corp., 1999 ME 16 (Me. 1999).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 212(3)(A) — 4 cases
Clark v. Int'l Paper Co., 638 A.2d 65 (Me. 1994).
Steve L. Michaud v. Caribou Ford-Mercury, Inc., 2024 ME 74 (Me. 2024). “2d 1256 (distinguishing between “physical loss” and “loss of function” of a finger and concluding that section 212(3) generally requires amputation of the member); see also 39-A M.”
Archer v. MDS Bldg., Inc., 841 A.2d 801 (Me. 2004).
McNally v. Douglas Bros., Inc., 2003 ME 155 (Me. 2003).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 212(3)(F) — 1 case
McNally v. Douglas Bros., Inc., 2003 ME 155 (Me. 2003).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 212(3)(G) — 2 cases
Saucier v. Portland, 932 A.2d 1178 (Me. 2007). “1, 1993) (codified at 39-A M.R.S. § 212 (2006)). The Statement of Fact that accompanied the enactment of 39-A M.”
Archer v. MDS Bldg., Inc., 841 A.2d 801 (Me. 2004).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 212(3)(J) — 1 case
Saucier v. Portland, 932 A.2d 1178 (Me. 2007). “1, 1993) (codified at 39-A M.R.S. § 212 (2006)). The Statement of Fact that accompanied the enactment of 39-A M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 212(3)(M) — 2 cases
Steve L. Michaud v. Caribou Ford-Mercury, Inc., 2024 ME 74 (Me. 2024). “2d 1256 (distinguishing between “physical loss” and “loss of function” of a finger and concluding that section 212(3) generally requires amputation of the member); see also 39-A M.”
Tracy v. Hershey Creamery Co., 720 A.2d 579 (Me. 1998).
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.