Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 307 (2026)

Procedure for filing petitions; no response required; mediation

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Petition. Any interested party may seek a determination of rights under this Act by filing with the board any petition authorized under this Act.

[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]

2. Service upon responding party. Copies of all petitions filed under this Act must be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the other parties named in the petition. In the case of a petition by an employee, a copy of the petition must be served upon the employer, employer's insurer or group self-insurer.

[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]

3. No response required. No response to a petition filed under this section is required.

[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]

4. Procedure. A petition filed under this section must be referred by the board to mediation.

[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]

5. Mediation. Mediation must be held in accordance with section 313, subsections 2 to 5.

[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 4 cases, 1994–2014 · leading case: Fay E. Johnson v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2014 ME 140, 106 A.3d 401.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fay E. Johnson v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2014 ME 140, 106 A.3d 401. · cites it 3× “Johnson’s attorney contends on her behalf that (1) Home Depot’s service of petitions for review of incapacity and for forfeiture of benefits on him but not on Johnson failed to satisfy 39-A M.R.S. § 307(2) (2013); and (2) the hearing officer lacked the authority to direct Home…”

Bridgeman v. S.D. Warren Co., 2005 ME 38, 872 A.2d 961. · cites it 2× “39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 307(5), 313(2) (2001); Me.”

Doucette v. Hallsmith/Sysco Food Servs., Inc., 2011 ME 68, 21 A.3d 99. · cites it 2× “39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 307(5), 313(2) (2001); Me.”

Harding v. Sheridan D. Smith, Inc., 647 A.2d 1193 (Me. 1994). “885, § A-7 (effective January 1, 1993), codified as 39-A M.R.S.A. § 307. 1 The Board granted the employee’s petition for restoration concerning the 1982 injury, finding that the employee’s self-employment contributed to 25% of his incapacity and the remaining responsibility was…”

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 307(2): 1 case

Fay E. Johnson v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2014 ME 140, 106 A.3d 401. “Johnson’s attorney contends on her behalf that (1) Home Depot’s service of petitions for review of incapacity and for forfeiture of benefits on him but not on Johnson failed to satisfy 39-A M.R.S. § 307(2) (2013); and (2) the hearing officer lacked the authority to direct Home…”

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 307(5): 2 cases

Bridgeman v. S.D. Warren Co., 2005 ME 38, 872 A.2d 961. “39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 307(5), 313(2) (2001); Me.”

Doucette v. Hallsmith/Sysco Food Servs., Inc., 2011 ME 68, 21 A.3d 99. “39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 307(5), 313(2) (2001); Me.”

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.