Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 318 (2026)

Hearing and decision

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The administrative law judge shall hear those witnesses as may be presented or, by agreement, the claims of both parties as to the facts may be presented by affidavits. If the facts are not in dispute, the parties may file with the administrative law judge an agreed statement of facts for a ruling on the applicable law. From the evidence or statements furnished, the administrative law judge shall in a summary manner decide the merits of the controversy. The administrative law judge's decision must be filed in the office of the board and a copy, attested by the clerk of the board, mailed promptly to all parties interested or to the attorney of record of each party. The administrative law judge's decision, in the absence of fraud, on all questions of fact is final; but if the administrative law judge expressly finds that any party has or has not sustained the party's burden of proof, that finding is considered a conclusion of law and is reviewable in accordance with section 322.   [PL 2015, c. 297, §13 (AMD).]
The administrative law judge, upon motion by the petitioning party, may include a finding in the decree that the employer's refusal to pay the benefits at issue was not based on any rational grounds developed between the claim and formal hearing. Upon such a finding, the employer shall pay interest to the employee under section 205, subsection 6 at a rate of 25% per annum from the date each payment was due, instead of 10% per annum.   [PL 2015, c. 297, §13 (AMD).]
The administrative law judge, upon the motion of a party made within 20 days after notice of the decision or upon its own motion, may find the facts specially and state separately the conclusions of law and file the appropriate decision if it differs from the decision filed before the request was made. Those findings and conclusions and the revised decision must be filed in the office of the board and a copy, attested by the clerk of the board, must be mailed promptly to all parties interested. The running of the time for appeal is terminated by a timely motion made pursuant to this section and the full time for appeal commences to run from the filing of those findings and conclusions and the revised decision.   [PL 2015, c. 297, §13 (AMD).]
Clerical mistakes in decrees, orders or other parts of the record and errors arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the board at any time of its own initiative, at the request of the administrative law judge or on the motion of any party and after notice to the parties. During the pendency of an appeal, these mistakes may be corrected before the appeal is filed with the division and thereafter, while the appeal is pending, may be corrected with leave of the division.   [PL 2015, c. 297, §13 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1991, c. 885, §A8 (NEW). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF). PL 1999, c. 410, §2 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 63, §10 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 63, §16 (AFF). PL 2015, c. 297, §13 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Gaetan H. Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC, 2018 ME 77 (Me. 2018).
Gaetan H. Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC, 2018 ME 77 (Me. 2018). · cites it 3× “Sulak regarding the benefits of 16 Certain portions of the WCA, including 39-A M.R.S. § 318 (2017), were amended after the decree in this case was entered, see, e.”
Doucette v. Hallsmith/Sysco Food Servs., Inc., 2011 ME 68 (Me. 2011). · cites it 6× “2d 906, 911 (declining to review a hearing officer's factual findings as directed by statute); see also 39-A M.R.S. § 318 (2010) ("The hearing officer's decision, in the absence of fraud, on all questions of fact is final.”
Maietta v. Town of Scarborough, 854 A.2d 223 (Me. 2004). · cites it 4× “§ 314 (2001), rather than a hearing officer proceeding pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A § 318 (2001). Because we conclude that the petition for appellate review was timely and the hearing officer erred in excluding relevant evidence and failing to make findings necessary to support the…”
Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 168 A.3d 762 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 39-A M.R.S. §§ 318, 322(3) (2016). Bailey, who at the time of the 2014 decree was sixty-five-years old, began working as a City of Lewiston firefighter in 1976.”
Est. of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army, 2015 ME 4 (Me. 2015). · cites it 3× “[¶5] On January 28, 2011, Sullwold’s widow filed a petition for award of compensation with the Workers’ Compensation Board, alleging that Sullwold’s “work resulted in a myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest.”
Damon v. S.D. Warren Co., 2010 ME 24 (Me. 2010). · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION [¶ 10] We address herein the treatment of the retiree presumption and the offset of the health and life insurance costs.”
Victor S. Urrutia v. Interstate Brands Int'l, 2018 ME 24 (Me. 2018). “39-A M.R.S. § 318 (2017). If the employee is still incapacitated, the award will indicate that the employer has a continuing obligation to make ongoing payments and, depending on the decision, the employer may be held responsible for payments retroactive to when the employee's…”
Rosetti v. Land Reclamation, 1997 ME 197 (Me. 1997). · cites it 2× “The Board granted the motion 3 and also filed its own motion with the Law Court pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 318 (Supp.1996), seeking to have its earlier decision amended to specify that both insurers must pay during the pendency of the appeal pursuant to section 205(9).”
Leighton v. S.D. Warren Co., 883 A.2d 906 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “While Leighton submitted some evidence that could support a finding that the employer had notice, the hearing officer expressly stated in the decree that it was not persuaded by that evidence.”
Harvey v. H.C. Price Co., 2008 ME 161 (Me. 2008). “Price contends that the hearing officer erred when adopting the IME’s opinion of 7% permanent impairment for depression, because the statute and Board rules require that permanent impairment ratings be established only pursuant to the fourth edition of the AMA Guides, and that…”
Doughty v. Work Opportunities Unlimited/Leddy Grp., 33 A.3d 410 (Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “2d 223 (quotation marks omitted). The hearing officer found as a matter of fact that Work Opportunities did not terminate Doughty for asserting his right to treat with a medical provider of his choice.”
Lorraine Somers v. S.D. Warren Co., 2020 ME 137 (Me. 2020). · cites it 2× “See 39-A M.R.S. § 318 (2020). When her motion was denied, Somers appealed to the Appellate Division.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 318(2014) — 1 case
Est. of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army, 2015 ME 4 (Me. 2015). “[¶5] On January 28, 2011, Sullwold’s widow filed a petition for award of compensation with the Workers’ Compensation Board, alleging that Sullwold’s “work resulted in a myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest.”
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.