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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 319 (2026)

Petition for reopening

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Upon the petition of either party, the board may reopen and review any compensation payment scheme, award or decree on the grounds of newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered prior to the time the payment scheme was initiated or prior to the hearing on which the award or decree was based. The petition must be filed within 30 days of the payment scheme, award or decree.   [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 5 cases, 1996–2017 · leading case: Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 168 A.3d 762 (Me. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 168 A.3d 762 (Me. 2017). “Except for the very limited circumstances referenced in 39-A M.R.S. §§ 319 and 321, the workers’ compensation statute provides no opportunity for a redetermination of a hearing officer’s *767 or ALJ’s findings regarding permanent impairment or MMI.”
Guar. Fund Mgmt. Servs. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 678 A.2d 578 (Me. 1996). “, 39-A M.R.S.A. §§ 319 (petition for reopening available within thirty days of a payment scheme, award or decree on the grounds of newly discovered evidence), 321(2) (petition for reopening available in cases of fraud).”
Miller v. Cpm Constructors, 2007 ME 144 (Me. 2007). · cites it 3× “23, of a decision of a Workers’ Compensation Board Hearing Officer (Sprague, HO) to reopen evidence pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 319 (2006), and, after reopening evidence, ordering Miller to repay benefits previously determined to have been received as a result of misrepresentation…”
Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 168 A.3d 762 (Me. 2017). “Except for the very limited circumstances referenced in 39-A M.R.S. §§ 319 and 321, the workers’ compensation statute provides no opportunity for a redetermination of a hearing officer’s *767 or ALJ’s findings regarding permanent impairment or MMI.”
Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 168 A.3d 762 (Me. 2017). “Except for the very limited circumstances referenced in 39-A M.R.S. §§ 319 and 321, the workers’ compensation statute provides no opportunity for a redetermination of a hearing officer’s *767 or ALJ’s findings regarding permanent impairment or MMI.”
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.