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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 217 (2026)

Employment rehabilitation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When as a result of injury the employee is unable to perform work for which the employee has previous training or experience, the employee is entitled to such employment rehabilitation services, including retraining and job placement, as reasonably necessary to restore the employee to suitable employment.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
1.  Services.  If employment rehabilitation services are not voluntarily offered and accepted, the board on its own motion or upon application of the employee, carrier or employer, after affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, may refer the employee to a board-approved facility for evaluation of the need for and kind of service, treatment or training necessary and appropriate to return the employee to suitable employment. The board's determination under this subsection is final.  
[PL 2013, c. 63, §6 (AMD).]
2.  Plan ordered.  Upon receipt of an evaluation report pursuant to subsection 1, if the board finds that the proposed plan complies with this Act and that the implementation of the proposed plan is likely to return the injured employee to suitable employment at a reasonable cost, it may order the implementation of the plan. Implementation costs of a plan ordered under this subsection must be paid from the Employment Rehabilitation Fund as provided in section 355, subsection 7. The board's determination under this subsection is final.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
3.  Order of implementation costs recovery.  If an injured employee returns to suitable employment after completing a rehabilitation plan ordered under subsection 2, the board shall order the employer who refused to agree to implement the plan to pay reimbursement to the Employment Rehabilitation Fund as provided in section 355, subsection 7.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
4.  Additional payments.  The board may order that any employee participating in employment rehabilitation receive additional payments for transportation or any extra and necessary expenses during the period and arising out of the employee's program of employment rehabilitation.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
5.  Limitation.  Employment rehabilitation training, treatment or service may not extend for a period of more than 52 weeks except in cases when, by special order, the board extends the period up to an additional 52 weeks.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
6.  Loss of or reduction in benefits.  If an employee unjustifiably refuses to accept rehabilitation pursuant to an order of the board, the board shall order a loss or reduction of compensation in an amount determined by the board for each week of the period of refusal, except for specific compensation payable under section 212, subsection 3.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
7.  Hearing.  If a dispute arises between the parties concerning application of any of the provisions of subsections 1 to 6, any of the parties may apply for a hearing before the board.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
8.  Presumption. 
[PL 2017, c. 53, §1 (RP).]
9.  Reduction of benefits.  If an employee is actively participating in a rehabilitation plan ordered pursuant to subsection 2, benefits may not be reduced except:  
A. Under section 205, subsection 9, paragraph A, upon the employee's return to work with or an increase in pay from an employer who is paying the employee compensation under this Act;   [PL 2017, c. 53, §2 (NEW).]
B. Under section 205, subsection 9, paragraph B, based on the amount of actual documented earnings paid to the employee; or   [PL 2017, c. 53, §2 (NEW).]
C. When the employee reaches the durational limit of benefits paid under section 213.   [PL 2017, c. 53, §2 (NEW).]
[PL 2017, c. 53, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1991, c. 885, §A8 (NEW). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF). PL 2011, c. 647, §14 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 63, §6 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 53, §§1, 2 (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 6 cases, 1995–2008 · leading case: Tucker v. Associated Grocers of Maine, Inc., 2008 ME 167 (Me. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tucker v. Associated Grocers of Maine, Inc., 2008 ME 167 (Me. 2008). · cites it 4× “[¶ 16] AGM contends this is error because, by searching only for part-time work after he went back to school, Tucker chose underemployment—and an employer is not bound to subsidize that choice.”
Johnson v. Shaw's Distrib. Ctr., 760 A.2d 1057 (Me. 2000). · cites it 3× “Shaw’s disputed Johnson’s need for additional education and a hearing was held to determine whether Johnson was entitled to rehabilitation services pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 217 (Pamph.1999). The Assistant Administrator of Rehabilitation referred Johnson to a vocational…”
McAdam v. United Parcel Serv. & Helmsman Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 2001 ME 4 (Me. 2001). “The entry is: Decision of the Workers’ Compensation hearing officer vacated and remanded to the hearing officer for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
McAdam v. United Parcel Serv., 743 A.2d 741 (Me. 2000). · cites it 4× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 217 (emphasis added). [¶ 5] UPS contends that, in light of the employee’s post-injury employment and other factors relating to his employability, it was error for the Board to conclude that the plan is “reasonably necessary to restore the employee to suitable…”
Cook v. Greyhound Bus Lines, Inc., 659 A.2d 287 (Me. 1995). “1, 1993) (codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. § 217 (1994)), and the information conference stage.”
Knapp v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “See 39-A M.R.S.A. § 217. Finally, the Hearing Officer’s determination that Ms.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 217(1) — 1 case
McAdam v. United Parcel Serv., 743 A.2d 741 (Me. 2000). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 217 (emphasis added). [¶ 5] UPS contends that, in light of the employee’s post-injury employment and other factors relating to his employability, it was error for the Board to conclude that the plan is “reasonably necessary to restore the employee to suitable…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 217(2) — 3 cases
Johnson v. Shaw's Distrib. Ctr., 760 A.2d 1057 (Me. 2000). “Shaw’s disputed Johnson’s need for additional education and a hearing was held to determine whether Johnson was entitled to rehabilitation services pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 217 (Pamph.1999). The Assistant Administrator of Rehabilitation referred Johnson to a vocational…”
McAdam v. United Parcel Serv. & Helmsman Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 2001 ME 4 (Me. 2001). “The entry is: Decision of the Workers’ Compensation hearing officer vacated and remanded to the hearing officer for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
McAdam v. United Parcel Serv., 743 A.2d 741 (Me. 2000). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 217 (emphasis added). [¶ 5] UPS contends that, in light of the employee’s post-injury employment and other factors relating to his employability, it was error for the Board to conclude that the plan is “reasonably necessary to restore the employee to suitable…”
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.