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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 223 (2026)

Presumption of earnings loss for retirees

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Presumption.  An employee who terminates active employment and is receiving nondisability pension or retirement benefits under either a private or governmental pension or retirement program, including old-age benefits under the United States Social Security Act, 42 United States Code, Sections 301 to 1397f, that was paid by or on behalf of an employer from whom weekly benefits under this Act are sought is presumed not to have a loss of earnings or earning capacity as the result of compensable injury or disease under this Act. This presumption may be rebutted only by a preponderance of evidence that the employee is unable, because of a work-related disability, to perform work suitable to the employee's qualifications, including training or experience. This standard of disability supersedes other applicable standards used to determine disability under this Act.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
2.  Construction.  This section may not be construed as a bar to an employee receiving medical benefits under section 206 upon the establishment of a causal relationship between the employee's work and the need for medical treatment.  
[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).
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 10 cases, 1995–2012 · leading case: Damon v. S.D. Warren Co., 2010 ME 24 (Me. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Damon v. S.D. Warren Co., 2010 ME 24 (Me. 2010). · cites it 5× “Warren appeals, contending that the hearing officer erred when he failed to apply the retiree presumption of ineligibility for benefits pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 223 (2009). 2 Damon also appeals, contending that the hearing officer erred when, pursuant to 39 M.”
Saucier v. Portland, 932 A.2d 1178 (Me. 2007). · cites it 7× “See 39-A M.R.S. § 223 (2006). We *1180 agree, and vacate the hearing officer’s decision.”
Bowie v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 661 A.2d 1128 (Me. 1995). · cites it 5× “The employee, William Bowie, appeals from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board denying his petition for review based on his failure to rebut the presumption set forth in 39-A M.R.S.A. § 223 (Supp.1994-95). Bowie contends that the presumption does not apply to him…”
Downing v. Dep't of Transp., 34 A.3d 1150 (Me. 2012). · cites it 9× “Among other things, Downing contends the hearing officer erred when determining that Downing did not rebut the retiree presumption in 39-A M.R.S. § 223 (2011) with evidence that he was unable to perform suitable work for a discrete period of time after retirement.”
Morrissette v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 2003 ME 138 (Me. 2003). “1995) (applying the 39-A M.R.S.A. § 223 (2001) retiree presumption retroactively to injury predating presumption).”
Foley v. Verizon, 931 A.2d 1058 (Me. 2007). “The parties also agreed that the retirement presumption of 39-A M.R.S. § 223 (2006) does not apply. .”
Pendexter v. Tilcon of Maine, Inc., 724 A.2d 618 (Me. 1999). · cites it 3× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 223 (Supp.1998). We affirm.”
Costales v. S.D. Warren Co., 2003 ME 115 (Me. 2003). · cites it 5× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 223 (2001). The hearing officer concluded that the presumption could not be rebutted without persuasive evidence of a total physical incapacity to work, and that evidence of an unsuccessful work search was insufficient.”
Cesare v. Great N. Paper Co., 697 A.2d 1325 (Me. 1997). · cites it 2× “Great Northern contends that the Board erred by failing to apply the retiree presumption of 39-A M.R.S.A. § 223 (Supp. 1996) and by ruling that Great Northern had not met its burden pursuant to 39-A M.”
Roy v. Bath Iron Works, 952 A.2d 965 (Me. 2008). “is presumed not to have a loss of earnings or earning capacity as the result of compensable injury or disease under this Act.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 223(1) — 3 cases
Damon v. S.D. Warren Co., 2010 ME 24 (Me. 2010). “Warren appeals, contending that the hearing officer erred when he failed to apply the retiree presumption of ineligibility for benefits pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 223 (2009). 2 Damon also appeals, contending that the hearing officer erred when, pursuant to 39 M.”
Downing v. Dep't of Transp., 34 A.3d 1150 (Me. 2012). “Among other things, Downing contends the hearing officer erred when determining that Downing did not rebut the retiree presumption in 39-A M.R.S. § 223 (2011) with evidence that he was unable to perform suitable work for a discrete period of time after retirement.”
Costales v. S.D. Warren Co., 2003 ME 115 (Me. 2003). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 223 (2001). The hearing officer concluded that the presumption could not be rebutted without persuasive evidence of a total physical incapacity to work, and that evidence of an unsuccessful work search was insufficient.”
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.