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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 214 (2026)

Determination of partial incapacity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Benefit determination.  While the incapacity is partial, the employer shall pay the injured employee benefits as follows.  
A. If an employee receives a bona fide offer of reasonable employment from the previous employer or another employer or through the Bureau of Employment Services and the employee refuses that employment without good and reasonable cause, the employee is considered to have voluntarily withdrawn from the work force and is no longer entitled to any wage loss benefits under this Act during the period of the refusal.   [PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. G, §23 (AMD); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. G, §29 (AFF).]
B. If an injured employee's date of injury is prior to January 1, 2013 and the employee is employed at any job and the average weekly wage of the employee is less than that which the employee received before the date of injury, the employee is entitled to receive weekly benefits under this Act equal to 80% of the difference between the injured employee's after-tax weekly wage before the date of injury and the after-tax weekly wage that the injured employee is able to earn after the date of injury, but not more than the maximum weekly rate of compensation, as determined under section 211.   [PL 2011, c. 647, §10 (AMD).]
B-1. If an injured employee's date of injury is on or after January 1, 2013 and the employee is employed at any job and the average weekly wage of the employee is less than that which the employee received before the date of injury, the employee is entitled to receive weekly benefits under this Act equal to 2/3 of the difference, due to the injury, between the employee's average gross weekly wages, earnings or salary before the injury and the average gross weekly wages, earnings or salary that the employee is able to earn after the injury, but not more than the maximum weekly rate of compensation, as determined under section 211.   [PL 2011, c. 647, §11 (NEW).]
C. If an employee is employed at any job and the average weekly wage of the employee is equal to or more than the average weekly wage the employee received before the date of injury, the employee is not entitled to any wage loss benefits under this Act for the duration of the employment.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
D. If the employee, after having been employed at any job pursuant to this subsection for 100 weeks or more, loses that job through no fault of the employee, the employee is entitled to receive compensation under this Act pursuant to the following.  
(1) If, after exhaustion of unemployment benefit eligibility of an employee, the employment since the time of injury has not established a new wage earning capacity, the employee is entitled to receive compensation based upon the employee's wage at the original date of injury.  
(2) If the employee has established a new wage earning capacity, the employee is entitled to wage loss benefits based on the difference between the normal and customary wages paid to those persons performing the same or similar employment, as determined at the time of termination of the employment of the employee, and the wages paid at the time of the injury. There is a presumption of wage earning capacity established for any employments totaling 250 weeks or more.  
(3) If the employee becomes reemployed at any employment, the employee is then entitled to receive partial disability benefits as provided in paragraph B.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
E. If the employee, after having been employed at any job following the injury for less than 100 weeks, loses the job through no fault of the employee, the employee is entitled to receive compensation based upon the employee's wage at the original date of injury.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
[PL 2011, c. 647, §§10, 11 (AMD).]
2.  Notice to Bureau of Employment Services.  An insurance carrier or self-insurer shall notify the Bureau of Employment Services of the name of any injured employee who is unemployed and to whom the insurance carrier or self-insurer is paying benefits under this Act.  
[PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. G, §24 (AMD); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. G, §29 (AFF).]
3.  Priority.  The Bureau of Employment Services shall give priority to finding employment for those persons whose names are supplied under subsection 2.  
[PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. G, §24 (AMD); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. G, §29 (AFF).]
4.  Notice of refusal; termination of benefits.  The Bureau of Employment Services shall notify the board in writing of the name of any employee who refuses any bona fide offer of reasonable employment. Upon notification to the board, the board shall notify the insurance carrier or self-insurer who shall terminate the benefits of the employee pursuant to subsection 1, paragraph A.  
[PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. G, §24 (AMD); PL 1995, c. 560, Pt. G, §29 (AFF).]
5.  Reasonable employment defined.  "Reasonable employment," as used in this section, means any work that is within the employee's capacity to perform that poses no clear and proximate threat to the employee's health and safety and that is within a reasonable distance from that employee's residence. The employee's capacity to perform may not be limited to jobs in work suitable to the employee's qualification and training.  
[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 1995, c. 560, §§G23,24 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 560, §G29 (AFF). PL 2011, c. 647, §§10, 11 (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 19 cases, 1996–2010 · leading case: Avramovic v. R.C. Moore Transp., Inc., 2008 ME 140 (Me. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Avramovic v. R.C. Moore Transp., Inc., 2008 ME 140 (Me. 2008). · cites it 6× “Title 39-A M.R.S. § 214 (2007) provides in pertinent part: § 214.”
Holt v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 6, 2001 ME 146 (Me. 2001). · cites it 4× “39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 214(1), (5) (2001). As we have stated, the purpose of section 214(1)(A) is to provide an opportunity for employers to mitigate workers’ compensation benefits by offering injured employees reinstatement employment.”
Thompson v. Claw Island Foods, 1998 ME 101 (Me. 1998). · cites it 3× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 214. Pursuant to these provisions, when confronted with an employee’s decision to decline a job offer, from whatever source, the Board must determine first, whether the offer was a “bona fide offer of reasonable employment” and second, whether the employee…”
Loud v. Kezar Falls Woolen Co., 1999 ME 118 (Me. 1999). · cites it 3× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 214 (emphasis added). [¶ 6] Subsection 214(1) is designed to provide an opportunity for employers to mitigate workers’ compensation benefits by offering injured employees reinstatement employment.”
Bureau v. Staffing Network, Inc., 678 A.2d 583 (Me. 1996). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 214 (Supp.1995). Although the Act has been subject to repeated and frequent revision since first enacted in 1915, the provisions of the Act awarding partial incapacity benefits, including the present section 213, have consistently provided that employees must be…”
Williams v. Tyson's Food, Inc., 900 A.2d 195 (Me. 2006). · cites it 6× “The Statute and Legislative History [¶ 5] Title 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1) 1 generally establishes the level of incapacity benefits due to an employee who has some work capacity and returns to work or could return to work after an injury.”
Jandreau v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2003 ME 134 (Me. 2003). · cites it 2× “Moreover, pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 214(1)(A) (2001), an employer can terminate benefits during the period of refusal when an employee unreasonably refuses a good faith offer of bona fide employment.”
Saucier v. Portland, 932 A.2d 1178 (Me. 2007). “Nichols further contends that permanent and total loss of industrial use benefits are unavailable to Saucier because she refused an offer of reasonable employment pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1)(A) (2006), and that Saucier is not entitled to interest on the award.”
Edwards v. Travelers Ins., 783 A.2d 163 (Me. 2001). “885, §§ A-7, A-8 (codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. § 214 (2001)); 39 M.R.S.A. § 56-B (Supp.”
Ladd v. Grinnell Corp., 728 A.2d 1275 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× ““Reasonable employment,” as used in this section, means any work that is within the employee’s capacity to perform that poses no clear and proximate threat to the employee’s health and safety and that is within a reasonable distance from that employee’s residence.”
Constr. Servs. Workers' Comp. Grp. Self Ins. Trust v. Stevens, 2010 ME 108 (Me. 2010). · cites it 8× “See 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1)(A) (2009). [5] The proceeding before *694 the Board was still pending at the time of the trial in the Superior Court, and the record suggests that it had been stayed at Dennis's request pending the entry of a judgment in the lien action.”
Thompson v. Earle W. Noyes & Sons, Inc., 935 A.2d 663 (Me. 2007). · cites it 5× “The hearing officer determined, pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1)(A) (2006), that Thompson forfeited his workers’ compensation benefits when he resigned from employment because his reason for doing so was unrelated to the work injury or the employment.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 214(1) — 4 cases
Holt v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 6, 2001 ME 146 (Me. 2001). “39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 214(1), (5) (2001). As we have stated, the purpose of section 214(1)(A) is to provide an opportunity for employers to mitigate workers’ compensation benefits by offering injured employees reinstatement employment.”
Williams v. Tyson's Food, Inc., 900 A.2d 195 (Me. 2006). “The Statute and Legislative History [¶ 5] Title 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1) 1 generally establishes the level of incapacity benefits due to an employee who has some work capacity and returns to work or could return to work after an injury.”
Ladd v. Grinnell Corp., 728 A.2d 1275 (Me. 1999). ““Reasonable employment,” as used in this section, means any work that is within the employee’s capacity to perform that poses no clear and proximate threat to the employee’s health and safety and that is within a reasonable distance from that employee’s residence.”
Smith v. Mkt. Square Health Care Ctr., 704 A.2d 379 (Me. 1997).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 214(1)(A) — 12 cases
Avramovic v. R.C. Moore Transp., Inc., 2008 ME 140 (Me. 2008). “Title 39-A M.R.S. § 214 (2007) provides in pertinent part: § 214.”
Thompson v. Claw Island Foods, 1998 ME 101 (Me. 1998). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 214. Pursuant to these provisions, when confronted with an employee’s decision to decline a job offer, from whatever source, the Board must determine first, whether the offer was a “bona fide offer of reasonable employment” and second, whether the employee…”
Loud v. Kezar Falls Woolen Co., 1999 ME 118 (Me. 1999). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 214 (emphasis added). [¶ 6] Subsection 214(1) is designed to provide an opportunity for employers to mitigate workers’ compensation benefits by offering injured employees reinstatement employment.”
Saucier v. Portland, 932 A.2d 1178 (Me. 2007). “Nichols further contends that permanent and total loss of industrial use benefits are unavailable to Saucier because she refused an offer of reasonable employment pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1)(A) (2006), and that Saucier is not entitled to interest on the award.”
Holt v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 6, 2001 ME 146 (Me. 2001). “39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 214(1), (5) (2001). As we have stated, the purpose of section 214(1)(A) is to provide an opportunity for employers to mitigate workers’ compensation benefits by offering injured employees reinstatement employment.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 214(1)(B) — 2 cases
Jandreau v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2003 ME 134 (Me. 2003). “Moreover, pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 214(1)(A) (2001), an employer can terminate benefits during the period of refusal when an employee unreasonably refuses a good faith offer of bona fide employment.”
Thompson v. Consol. Constructors, 677 A.2d 554 (Me. 1996).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 214(1)(C) — 1 case
Grant v. Cent. Maine Power Co., 828 A.2d 800 (Me. 2003).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 214(1)(D) — 1 case
Flickinger v. Oakhurst Dairy, 899 A.2d 784 (Me. 2006).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 214(1)(E) — 1 case
Williams v. Tyson's Food, Inc., 900 A.2d 195 (Me. 2006). “The Statute and Legislative History [¶ 5] Title 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1) 1 generally establishes the level of incapacity benefits due to an employee who has some work capacity and returns to work or could return to work after an injury.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 214(2) — 1 case
Holt v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 6, 2001 ME 146 (Me. 2001). “39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 214(1), (5) (2001). As we have stated, the purpose of section 214(1)(A) is to provide an opportunity for employers to mitigate workers’ compensation benefits by offering injured employees reinstatement employment.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 214(5) — 2 cases
Holt v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 6, 2001 ME 146 (Me. 2001). “39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 214(1), (5) (2001). As we have stated, the purpose of section 214(1)(A) is to provide an opportunity for employers to mitigate workers’ compensation benefits by offering injured employees reinstatement employment.”
Thompson v. Earle W. Noyes & Sons, Inc., 935 A.2d 663 (Me. 2007). “The hearing officer determined, pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 214(1)(A) (2006), that Thompson forfeited his workers’ compensation benefits when he resigned from employment because his reason for doing so was unrelated to the work injury or the employment.”
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.