Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 320 (2026)

Review by full board

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An administrative law judge may request that the full board review a decision of the administrative law judge if the decision involves an issue that is of significance to the operation of the workers' compensation system. Except when a motion is filed to find the facts specially and state separately the conclusions of law, the request must be made within 25 days of the issuance of a decision. If a motion is filed to find the facts specially and state separately the conclusions of law, the request must be made within 5 days of the issuance of a decision on the motion. There may be no such review of findings of fact made by an administrative law judge.   [PL 2015, c. 297, §14 (AMD).]
If an administrative law judge asks for review, the time for appeal is stayed and no further action may be taken until a decision of the board has been made. If the board reviews a decision of an administrative law judge, any appeal must be from the decision of the board and must be made to the Law Court in accordance with section 322. The time for appeal begins upon the board's issuance of a written decision on the merits of the case or written notice that the board denies review.   [PL 2015, c. 297, §14 (AMD).]
The board shall vote on whether to review the decision. If a majority of the board's membership fails to vote to grant review or the board fails to act within 60 days after receiving the initial request for review, the decision of the administrative law judge stands, and any appeal must be made to the division in accordance with section 321‑B. If the board votes to review the decision, the board may delegate responsibility for reviewing the decision of the administrative law judge under this section to panels of board members consisting of equal numbers of representatives of labor and management. Review must be on the record and on written briefs only. Upon a vote of a majority of the board's membership, the board shall issue a written decision affirming, remanding, vacating or modifying the administrative law judge's decision. The written decision of the board must be filed with the board and mailed to the parties or their counsel. If the board fails to adopt a decision by majority vote, the decision of the administrative law judge stands and is subject to direct appellate review in the same manner as if the board had not voted to review the decision.   [PL 2015, c. 297, §14 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1991, c. 885, §A8 (NEW). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 608, §13 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 25, §1 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 647, §19 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 63, §§11, 12 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 63, §16 (AFF). PL 2015, c. 297, §14 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1995–2013 · leading case: Mathieu v. Bath Iron Works, 667 A.2d 862 (Me. 1995).
Mathieu v. Bath Iron Works, 667 A.2d 862 (Me. 1995). · cites it 3× “Mathieu appealed to the former Appellate Division, which failed to resolve his appeal prior to going out of existence on January 1, 1994.”
Graves v. Brockway-Smith Co., 55 A.3d 456 (Me. 2012). · cites it 2× “[¶ 8] Pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 320 (2011), 4 the hearing officer then submitted to the full Workers’ Compensation Board the question of whether the holding in Wilson , which involved application of the two-year statute of limitations in 39-A M.”
D'Amato v. S.D. Warren Co., 2003 ME 116 (Me. 2003). “Warren’s request and pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 320 (2001), she requested full Board review regarding her authority to issue a decision following December 31, 2002.”
Laskey v. SD Warren Co., 2001 ME 103 (Me. 2001). “’ The Hearing Officer referred the issue to the full Board for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 320 (2001). Sec *363 tion 320 authorizes fall Board review of a Hearing Officer’s decision which “involves an issue that is of significance to the operation of the…”
Thompson v. Claw Island Foods, 1998 ME 101 (Me. 1998). “1997), or through the exercise of its appellate review authority, see 39-A M.R.S.A. § 320 (Supp.1997), the full Board has not had an opportunity to address this issue.”
Fernald v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 946 A.2d 395 (Me. 2008). “Board Review [¶ 5] Both decisions were referred by the hearing officer to the full Workers’ Compensation Board for review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 320 (2007), and were consolidated.”
Est. of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army, 2013 ME 28 (Me. 2013). “§ 318 (2012) and requested that the hearing officer report the case to the Board pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 320 (2011). The hearing officer issued additional findings and conclusions on August 6, 2012, and initially declined to report the case.”
Croteau-Robinson v. Merrill Trust/Fleet Bank, 669 A.2d 763 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 320 (Supp.1994). Because we vacate the decision on non-constitutional grounds, we do not reach the constitutional issues raised by the employee.”
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 1997 ME 104 (Me. 1997). “When the Appellate Division was eliminated in 1993, the Legislature provided for discretionary review to the full Board when a hearing officer requests such review, based on a determination that the decision “involves an issue that is of significance to the operation of the…”
Williams v. E.S. Boulos Co., 2000 ME 40 (Me. 2000). “” 39-A M.R.S.A. § 320 (Pamph.1999). The Board has access to information that will permit it to balance the protection of workers against the costs to the employers.”
Nolette v. Interstate Brands Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2002). “” On October 4, 2001 the full Workers’ Compensation Board decided to review the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. §320. A week later on October 11, 2001 Judge Hornby of the United States District Court denied a motion of Interstate Brands for a…”
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.