Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 305 (2026)

Petition for award; protective decree

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In the event of a controversy as to the responsibility of an employer for the payment of compensation, any party in interest may file in the office of the board a petition for award of compensation setting forth the names and residences of the parties, the facts relating to the employment at the time of the injury, the knowledge of the employer or notice of the occurrence of the injury, the character and extent of the injury and the claims of the petitioner with reference to the injury, together with such other facts as may be necessary and proper for the determination of the rights of the petitioner.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
If, following an injury that causes no incapacity for work, the employer and employee reach an agreement that the employee has received a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment, a memorandum of such an agreement signed by the parties may be filed in the office of the board. The memorandum must set forth the names and residences of the parties, the facts relating to the employment at the time of the injury, the time, place and cause of the injury, and the nature and extent of the injury. Any member of the board is empowered, without the necessity of the filing of a petition for award, to render a protective decree based on that memorandum.   [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).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1994–2018 · leading case: Victor S. Urrutia v. Interstate Brands Int'l, 2018 ME 24 (Me. 2018).
Victor S. Urrutia v. Interstate Brands Int'l, 2018 ME 24 (Me. 2018). “39-A M.R.S. § 305. Under this scenario, in order to receive benefits, the employee must file a petition for an award with the Workers' Compensation Board.”
Hoglund v. Aaskov Plumbing & Heating, 2006 ME 42 (Me. 2006). “…at the time of the injury, the time, place and cause of the injury, and the nature and extent of the injury.” 39-A M.R.S. § 305 (2005).”
Carroll v. Celsius Contractors, 637 A.2d 111 (Me. 1994). “§ 94 (1989) (now 39-A M.R.S.A. § 305 (Pamph.1993)) (“Act”).”
Libby v. Boise Cascade Corp., 1998 ME 89 (Me. 1998). · cites it 3× “[¶ 3] The statutory bases for petitions for protection of the Act are found at 39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 305 and 307(1) (Supp.1997).”
Goff v. Cent. Maine Power Co., 1998 ME 269 (Me. 1998). “CMP’S APPEAL [¶ 5] CMP contends that its payment of benefits for the 1994 injury bars a petition for award for the 1981 injury even though that payment for the 1994 injury was without prejudice.”
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.