Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 321-B (2026)

Appeal from administrative law judge decision

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. Procedure. An appeal of a decision by an administrative law judge pursuant to section 318 to the division must be conducted pursuant to this subsection.

A. A party in interest may file with the division a notice of intent to appeal a decision by an administrative law judge pursuant to section 318 within 20 days after receipt of notice of the filing of the decision by the administrative law judge. [PL 2015, c. 297, §16 (AMD).]

B. At the time of filing an appeal under this section, the appellant shall file with the division a copy of the decision appealed. The failure of an appellant who timely files an appeal in accordance with paragraph A to provide a copy of the decision does not affect the jurisdiction of the division to determine the appeal on its merits unless the appellee shows substantial prejudice from that failure. [PL 2013, c. 63, §13 (AMD); PL 2013, c. 63, §16 (AFF).]

[PL 2015, c. 297, §16 (AMD).]

2. Basis. A finding of fact by an administrative law judge is not subject to appeal under this section.

[PL 2015, c. 297, §16 (AMD).]

3. Action. The division, after due consideration, may affirm, vacate, remand or modify a decree of an administrative law judge and shall issue a written decision. The written decision of the division must be filed with the board and mailed to the parties or their counsel.

[PL 2015, c. 297, §16 (AMD).]

4. Publication of decisions. The division shall publish the decisions issued under subsection 3 and make them available to the public at such cost as is required to pay for suitable publication. The division shall distribute copies of all written decisions to the State Law Library and the county law libraries.

[PL 2011, c. 647, §20 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 2011, c. 647, §20 (NEW). PL 2013, c. 63, §§13, 14 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 63, §16 (AFF). PL 2015, c. 297, §16 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · 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). · cites it 2× “See 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B (2014). 5 In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division vacated the hearing officer’s decree, concluding that the 2007 determination of permanent impairment as of the date of MMI was final, and therefore res judicata principles barred relitigation of…”

Victor S. Urrutia v. Interstate Brands Int'l, 2018 ME 24 (Me. 2018). “[¶ 8] Urrutia appealed the hearing officer's decree to the Appellate Division, see 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B (2017), which vacated the decree, concluding that the plain language of section 221 does not permit a credit for incapacity overpayments already made to the employee when the…”

Lorraine Somers v. S.D. Warren Co., 2020 ME 137 (Me. 2020). “See 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B (2020). [¶8] In January 2020, the Appellate Division vacated the decision, construing the plain language of the former Rule to require the prescribed notice before S.”

Steve L. Michaud v. Caribou Ford-Mercury, Inc., 2024 ME 74 (Me. 2024). “[¶8] Michaud then appealed the ALJ’s decree to the Appellate Division, see 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B (2024), arguing that the ALJ erred by concluding that, although Michaud’s injury immediately resulted in more than eighty percent vision loss in his left eye and medical intervention…”

Workers' Comp. Bd. Abuse Investigation Unit v. Nate Holyoke Builders, Inc., 2015 ME 99 (Me. 2015). · cites it 3× “See 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B(1)(A) (2014). In a decision issued on April 24, 2014, the Appellate Division interpreted section 401 to require that an employer purchase workers’ compensation coverage for all employees — including those erroneously predetermined to be independent…”

Darla J. Potter v. Great Falls Ins. Co., 2020 ME 144 (Me. 2020). “See 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B(2) (2020). The Appellate Division further stated, “Because we do not possess superior expertise than the ALJ in evaluating the claimant’s status as an employee or a seaman, we apply our ordinary standard of review, as set forth in Pomerleau.”

Michael F. Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 2017 ME 160 (Me. 2017). · cites it 3× “See 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B (2014).5 In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division vacated the hearing officer’s decree, concluding that the 2007 determination of permanent impairment as of the date of MMI was final, and therefore res judicata principles barred relitigation of…”

Michael F. Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 2017 ME 160 (Me. 2017). · cites it 3× “See 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B (2014).5 In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division vacated the hearing officer’s decree, concluding that the 2007 determination of permanent impairment as of the date of MMI was final, and therefore res judicata principles barred relitigation of…”

Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 168 A.3d 762 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B (2014). 5 In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division vacated the hearing officer’s decree, concluding that the 2007 determination of permanent impairment as of the date of MMI was final, and therefore res judicata principles barred relitigation of…”

Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 168 A.3d 762 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B (2014). 5 In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division vacated the hearing officer’s decree, concluding that the 2007 determination of permanent impairment as of the date of MMI was final, and therefore res judicata principles barred relitigation of…”

Katherine Stovall v. New England Tel. Co., 2025 ME 47 (Me. 2025). · cites it 2× “”7 The ALJ denied Stovall’s motion for further findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Stovall appealed, see 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B (2025). [¶13] The Appellate Division vacated the ALJ’s decision in December 2021 on the ground that, in concluding that the 2011 decision…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 321-B(1)(A) — 1 case

Workers' Comp. Bd. Abuse Investigation Unit v. Nate Holyoke Builders, Inc., 2015 ME 99 (Me. 2015). “See 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B(1)(A) (2014). In a decision issued on April 24, 2014, the Appellate Division interpreted section 401 to require that an employer purchase workers’ compensation coverage for all employees — including those erroneously predetermined to be independent…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 321-B(2) — 2 cases

Workers' Comp. Bd. Abuse Investigation Unit v. Nate Holyoke Builders, Inc., 2015 ME 99 (Me. 2015). “See 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B(1)(A) (2014). In a decision issued on April 24, 2014, the Appellate Division interpreted section 401 to require that an employer purchase workers’ compensation coverage for all employees — including those erroneously predetermined to be independent…”

Darla J. Potter v. Great Falls Ins. Co., 2020 ME 144 (Me. 2020). “See 39-A M.R.S. § 321-B(2) (2020). The Appellate Division further stated, “Because we do not possess superior expertise than the ALJ in evaluating the claimant’s status as an employee or a seaman, we apply our ordinary standard of review, as set forth in Pomerleau.”

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.