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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 322 (2026)

Appeal from decision of appellate division or board

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Appeals.  Any party in interest may present a copy of the decision of the division or of the board, if the board has reviewed a decision pursuant to section 320, to the clerk of the Law Court within 20 days after receipt of notice of the filing of the decision by the division or the board. Within 20 days after the copy is filed with the Law Court, the party seeking review by the Law Court shall file a petition seeking appellate review with the Law Court that sets forth a brief statement of the facts, the error or errors of law that are alleged to exist and the legal authority supporting the position of the appellant. For purposes of an appeal from a decision issued pursuant to section 321‑B, subsection 3, only a decision of the division may be reviewed on appeal.  
[PL 2015, c. 469, §2 (AMD).]
2.  Procedures.  The Law Court shall establish and publish procedures for the review of petitions for appellate review of decisions of the board.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
3.  Discretionary appeal; action.  Upon the approval of 3 or more members of a panel consisting of no fewer than 5 Justices of the Law Court, the petition for appellate review may be granted. If the petition for appellate review is denied, the decision of the board is final. The petition must be considered on written briefs only.  
If the petition for appellate review is granted, the clerk of the Law Court shall notify the parties of the briefing schedule consistent with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and in all respects the appeal before the Law Court must be treated as an appeal in an action in which equitable relief has been sought, except that there may be no appeal upon findings of fact. The Law Court may, after due consideration, reverse, modify or affirm any decision of the board.  
[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). PL 2011, c. 647, §21 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 297, §17 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 469, §2 (AMD).
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 183 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · 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 4× “See 39-A M.R.S. § 322 (2016). We affirm the Appellate Division’s decision.”
Brenda L. Freeman v. NewPage Corp., 2016 ME 45 (Me. 2016). · cites it 3× “We granted Freeman’s petition for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 322 (2014) 2 and M.RApp. P.”
Guar. Fund Mgmt. Servs. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 678 A.2d 578 (Me. 1996). · cites it 5× “In addition to the appeals as of right from the court’s decision brought by the three employers, we granted Wright Express and Katahdin’s petitions for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (Supp.1995) from the Abuse Unit decisions issued after remand.”
Bridgeman v. S.D. Warren Co., 2005 ME 38 (Me. 2005). · cites it 4× “Warren's petition for appellate review and Bridgeman's cross-petition pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (2001). B. Mitchell v.”
Bureau v. Staffing Network, Inc., 678 A.2d 583 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “” We granted the employers’ petitions for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (Supp. 1995). The provisions of the 1992 Act pertaining to partial incapacity are as follows: While the incapacity for work is partial, the employer shall pay the injured employee a weekly…”
Ray v. Carland Constr., Inc., 1997 ME 206 (Me. 1997). · cites it 4× “We granted Carland's petition for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (Supp.1996). [¶ 4] Carland raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the Board properly calculated Ray's benefits according to the average weekly wage at the time of his first injury and (2)…”
D'Amato v. S.D. Warren Co., 2003 ME 116 (Me. 2003). · cites it 3× “Warren’s petition for review and motion for expedited hearing pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (2001). *798 B. The Hearing Officer’s Appointment by the Workers’ Compensation Board [¶ 5] The eight-member Workers’ Compensation Board was created in 1993 for the purpose of…”
Jasch v. Anchorage Inn, 2002 ME 106 (Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “The hearing officer also denied the employee’s motion for further findings of fact, and we granted Jasch’s petition for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (2001), and ordered that the appeal be consolidated with Cowperthwaite v.”
Grubb v. S.D. Warren Co., 2003 ME 139 (Me. 2003). · cites it 2× “Warren's petition for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (2001). II. DISCUSSION [¶ 7] Because the hearing officer based his decision upon the conclusion that principles of res judicata do not apply in this case, we limit our analysis to that conclusion.”
Livingstone v. A-R Cable Servs. of Maine, 2000 ME 18 (Me. 2000). · cites it 5× “1 The same decision of the arbitrator is also before us via a different avenue, namely a petition for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (Supp.1999). The petition for appellate review was brought by A-R Cable Service, through its insurer, Commercial Union Insurance…”
Gaetan H. Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC, 2018 ME 77 (Me. 2018). “Following a hearing, the hearing officer granted Bourgoin's petition in a written decision issued in March of 2015.”
Bernard v. Mead Publ'g Paper Div., 2001 ME 15 (Me. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Hearing Officer then calculated two-thirds of the difference between Bernard's adjusted pre-injury weekly wage of $1360 and his post-injury earning capacity of $560 a week to arrive at a weekly compensation of $533.33. [¶ 6] The Hearing Officer granted the employer's motion…”
Show all 183 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 322(1) — 14 cases
Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 168 A.3d 762 (Me. 2017). “See 39-A M.R.S. § 322 (2016). We affirm the Appellate Division’s decision.”
Guar. Fund Mgmt. Servs. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 678 A.2d 578 (Me. 1996). “In addition to the appeals as of right from the court’s decision brought by the three employers, we granted Wright Express and Katahdin’s petitions for appellate review pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (Supp.1995) from the Abuse Unit decisions issued after remand.”
Roger Desgrosseilliers v. Auburn Sheet Metal at al., 2021 ME 63 (Me. 2021).
D'Amato v. S.D. Warren Co., 2003 ME 116 (Me. 2003). “Warren’s petition for review and motion for expedited hearing pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 322 (2001). *798 B. The Hearing Officer’s Appointment by the Workers’ Compensation Board [¶ 5] The eight-member Workers’ Compensation Board was created in 1993 for the purpose of…”
Maietta v. Town of Scarborough, 854 A.2d 223 (Me. 2004).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 322(3) — 24 cases
Bailey v. City of Lewiston, 168 A.3d 762 (Me. 2017). “See 39-A M.R.S. § 322 (2016). We affirm the Appellate Division’s decision.”
Damon v. S.D. Warren Co., 2010 ME 24 (Me. 2010).
Est. of Joyce v. Com. Welding Co., 55 A.3d 411 (Me. 2012).
Roger Desgrosseilliers v. Auburn Sheet Metal at al., 2021 ME 63 (Me. 2021).
Baker v. S.D. Warren Co., 2010 ME 87 (Me. 2010).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 322(3)(2010) — 1 case
Doucette v. Hallsmith/Sysco Food Servs., Inc., 2011 ME 68 (Me. 2011).
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.