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

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

Reopening for mistake of fact or fraud

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Agreements.  Upon the petition of either party at any time, the board may annul any agreement that has been approved by the board if it finds that the agreement has been entered into through mistake of fact by the petitioner or through fraud. Except in the case of fraud on the part of the employee, an employee is not barred by any time limit from filing a petition to have the matters covered by the agreement determined in accordance with this Act as though the agreement had not been approved.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
2.  Compensation payment scheme.  A party may petition the board, within one year of initiation of a payment scheme, award or decree, to reopen any case in which fraud on the part of the opposing party is alleged. If the board finds that the petitioning party exercised due diligence in investigating the initial claim and further finds that fraud occurred, the board may reopen the case as to any issue that may have been affected by the fraudulent act and the board may terminate or modify an employer's obligation to make payment upon a finding that fraud on the part of a party affected the employer's obligation to make payment.  
Except in the case of fraud on the part of the employee, an employee is not barred by any time limit from filing a petition to have any issues determined in accordance with this Act as though the payment scheme had not been initiated.  
[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 4 cases, 1995–2004 · leading case: Hawkes v. Com. Union Ins., 2001 ME 8 (Me. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hawkes v. Com. Union Ins., 2001 ME 8 (Me. 2001). “2d at 338 ; see 39-A M.R.S.A. § 321 (Pamph. 2000). We cited Procise for the proposition that when the tort action is based on a claim of wrongful denial of workers’ compensation benefits, the Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy.”
Lavoie v. Gervais, 713 A.2d 335 (Me. 1998). · cites it 2× “Rather, pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 321 (Supp.1997), a party may petition the board to reopen any case “in which fraud on the part of the opposing party is alleged.”
Baker v. Klein, 655 A.2d 367 (Me. 1995). “Except in the case of fraud on the part of the employee, an employee is not barred by any time limit from filing a petition to have any issues determined in accordance with this Act as though the payment scheme had not been initiated.”
Arsenault v. J.A. Thurston Co., 2004 ME 83 (Me. 2004). “Although 39-A M.R.S.A. § 321 (2001) provides a method for the annulment of an approved lump sum settlement agreement under certain limited and narrowly proscribed circumstances, we have held that the initial decision to approve a lump sum settlement may be appealed in the same…”
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.