Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39-A

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 354

Multiple injuries; apportionment of liability

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Applicability.  When 2 or more occupational injuries occur, during either a single employment or successive employments, that combine to produce a single incapacitating condition and more than one insurer is responsible for that condition, liability is governed by this section.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
2.  Liability to employee.  If an employee has sustained more than one injury while employed by different employers, or if an employee has sustained more than one injury while employed by the same employer and that employer was insured by one insurer when the first injury occurred and insured by another insurer when the subsequent injury or injuries occurred, the insurer providing coverage at the time of the last injury shall initially be responsible to the employee for all benefits payable under this Act.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
3.  Subrogation.  Any insurer determined to be liable for benefits under subsection 2 must be subrogated to the employee's rights under this Act for all benefits the insurer has paid and for which another insurer may be liable. Apportionment decisions made under this subsection may not affect an employee's rights and benefits under this Act. There may be no reduction of an employee's entitlement to any benefits under this Act payable by an insurer based on a prior work-related injury that was the subject of a lump sum settlement approved by the board prior to the date of the injury for which the insurer is responsible. The board has jurisdiction over proceedings to determine the apportionment of liability among responsible insurers.  
[PL 2009, c. 301, §1 (AMD); PL 2009, c. 301, §2 (AFF).]
4.  Consolidation.  The board may consolidate some or all proceedings arising out of multiple injuries.  
[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 1999, c. 354, §9 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 301, §1 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 301, §2 (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 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Maine Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Folsom
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maine Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Folsom (2001) me · cites it 7× “[¶ 3] In 1996 Folsom filed petitions for award and restoration against all insurers, including MIGA, acting on behalf of American Mutual. In 1998, a Hearing Officer of the Workers’ Compensation Board granted the petitions and awarded ongoing partial incapacity benefits.”
Commercial Union Insurance v. Maine Employers' Mutual Insurance (2002) me · cites it 5× “) vacating an apportionment by an arbitrator appointed by the Bureau of Insurance pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1998). 1 MEM-IC asserts that the Superior Court exceeded the scope of its judicial review or, in the alternative, that there was ample support for the…”
Dunson v. South Portland Housing Authority (2003) me · cites it 5× “[¶ 3] Pursuant to the apportionment provision, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (2001), 3 the Housing Authority, as the employer at the time of the most recent injury, is initially responsible for paying all benefits to the employee, but is entitled to reimbursement from Shaw’s and its two…”
Livingstone v. A-R Cable Services of Maine (2000) me · cites it 7× “), vacating an apportionment decision of an arbitrator appointed pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1998). 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.”
Edwards v. Travelers Insurance (2001) me · cites it 8× “Apportionment was requested through arbitration as authorized by 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1998), amended by P.”
Rosetti v. Land Reclamation (1997) me · cites it 5× “1 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1996). [¶2] The employee, Dominic Rosetti, suffered two compensable low-back injuries; the first in 1979, while employed by Shurtleff, and the second in 1991, while employed by Reclamation.”
Pratt v. Fraser Paper, Ltd. (2001) me · cites it 4× “1975), but is now codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (2001).”
Hincks v. Robert Mitchell Co. (1999) me · cites it 4× “1998), the apportionment of liability between insurers pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1998), and the inclusion of fringe benefits in the employee’s average weekly wage.”
Juliano v. AMERI-CANA TRANSPORT (2007) me · cites it 6× “2d at 186 ; 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1998), amended by P.”
Lamonica v. Holmes (1998) me · cites it 3× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1997) (emphasis added).”
Ray v. Carland Construction, Inc. (1997) me · cites it 2× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 354(2) (Supp.1996). The parties do not challenge the Board's order making Carland primarily responsible for Ray's benefit payments with reimbursement from Zachau.”
LaPointe v. United Engineers & Constructors (1996) me · cites it 2× “885, §§ A-7, A-8 (effective January 1, 1993), codified as 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1995). The credit awarded in the 1991 decision was not an apportionment.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 354(1) — 3 cases
Lamonica v. Holmes (1998) me “39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1997) (emphasis added).”
Edwards v. Travelers Insurance (2001) me “Apportionment was requested through arbitration as authorized by 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1998), amended by P.”
Dennis G. Crosen v. Blouin Motors., Inc. (2024) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 354(2) — 6 cases
Ray v. Carland Construction, Inc. (1997) me “39-A M.R.S.A. § 354(2) (Supp.1996). The parties do not challenge the Board's order making Carland primarily responsible for Ray's benefit payments with reimbursement from Zachau.”
Juliano v. AMERI-CANA TRANSPORT (2007) me “2d at 186 ; 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1998), amended by P.”
Maine Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Folsom (2001) me “[¶ 3] In 1996 Folsom filed petitions for award and restoration against all insurers, including MIGA, acting on behalf of American Mutual. In 1998, a Hearing Officer of the Workers’ Compensation Board granted the petitions and awarded ongoing partial incapacity benefits.”
Miller v. Spinnaker Coating (2011) me
Trottier v. Thomas Messer Builders (2007) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 354(2001) — 1 case
Pratt v. Fraser Paper, Ltd. (2001) me “1975), but is now codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (2001).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 354(3) — 10 cases
Maine Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Folsom (2001) me “[¶ 3] In 1996 Folsom filed petitions for award and restoration against all insurers, including MIGA, acting on behalf of American Mutual. In 1998, a Hearing Officer of the Workers’ Compensation Board granted the petitions and awarded ongoing partial incapacity benefits.”
Rosetti v. Land Reclamation (1997) me “1 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1996). [¶2] The employee, Dominic Rosetti, suffered two compensable low-back injuries; the first in 1979, while employed by Shurtleff, and the second in 1991, while employed by Reclamation.”
Pratt v. Fraser Paper, Ltd. (2001) me “1975), but is now codified at 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (2001).”
Hincks v. Robert Mitchell Co. (1999) me “1998), the apportionment of liability between insurers pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (Supp.1998), and the inclusion of fringe benefits in the employee’s average weekly wage.”
Dunson v. South Portland Housing Authority (2003) me “[¶ 3] Pursuant to the apportionment provision, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (2001), 3 the Housing Authority, as the employer at the time of the most recent injury, is initially responsible for paying all benefits to the employee, but is entitled to reimbursement from Shaw’s and its two…”
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.