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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 360 (2026)

Penalties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Reporting violations.  The board may assess a civil penalty not to exceed $100 for each violation on any person:  
A. Who fails to file or complete any report or form required by this Act or rules adopted under this Act; or   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
B. Who fails to file or complete such a report or form within the time limits specified in this Act or rules adopted under this Act.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
An insured employer may be required to reimburse the insurer for any penalty under this subsection that is due as a result of the insured employer's failure to give timely notice or information to its insurer.  
[PL 2023, c. 205, §7 (AMD).]
2.  General authority.  The board may assess, after hearing, a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $1,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a corporation, partnership or other legal entity for any willful violation of this Act, fraud or intentional misrepresentation. The board may also require that person to repay any compensation received through a violation of this Act, fraud or intentional misrepresentation or to pay any compensation withheld through a violation of this Act, fraud or misrepresentation, with interest at the rate of 10% per year.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
3.  Appeal.  A decision of the board under this section is deemed to be final agency action subject to appeal to the Superior Court, as provided in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 7. Notwithstanding Title 5, section 11004, execution of a penalty assessed under this section is stayed during the pendency of any appeal under this subsection. The Attorney General shall represent the board in any appeal under this subsection or the board may retain private counsel for that purpose.  
[PL 2007, c. 78, §1 (AMD).]
4.  Enforcement and collection.  Penalties assessed under this section are in addition to any other remedies available under this Act and are enforceable by the Superior Court under section 323.  
A. The Attorney General shall prosecute any action necessary to recover penalties assessed under this section or the board may retain private counsel for that purpose.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
B. If any person fails to pay any penalty assessed under this section and enforcement by the Superior Court is necessary:  
(1) That person shall pay the costs of prosecuting the action in Superior Court, including reasonable attorney's fees; and  
(2) If the failure to pay was without due cause, any penalty assessed on that person under this section must be doubled.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
C. All penalties assessed under this section are payable to the General Fund.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
5.  Not an element of loss.  An insurance carrier's payment of any penalty assessed under this section may not be considered an element of loss for the purpose of establishing rates for workers' compensation insurance.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
6.  Maine Insurance Guaranty Association.  The provisions of this section apply to the Maine Insurance Guaranty Association under Title 24‑A, chapter 57, subchapter 3.  
[PL 2009, c. 129, §12 (NEW); PL 2009, c. 129, §13 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1991, c. 885, §A8 (NEW). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF). PL 2007, c. 78, §1 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 129, §12 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 129, §13 (AFF). PL 2023, c. 205, §7 (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 14 cases, 1996–2011 · leading case: Spellman v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D. Me. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spellman v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D. Me. 2008). · cites it 7× “MetLife, 34 on the other hand, focuses on the penalty provision that Spellman invoked in his petition to the Board, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(2), and claims that it conflicts impermissibly with ERISA enforcement remedies.”
Guar. Fund Mgmt. Servs. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 678 A.2d 578 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 360 (Supp.1995) (emphasis added).”
D'Amato v. S.D. Warren Co., 2003 ME 116 (Me. 2003). “The only exception in the Workers’ Compensation Act to section 322 is set forth in 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(4) (2001), which expressly authorizes review in the Superior Court for certain penalty actions against employers and in *800 surers, and is inapplicable to this proceeding.”
Hartford Enter., Inc. v. Coty, 529 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D. Me. 2008). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(3); 90-351 Code of Maine Rules, ch.”
Miller v. Cpm Constructors, 2007 ME 144 (Me. 2007). · cites it 6× “§ 319 (2006), and, after reopening evidence, ordering Miller to repay benefits previously determined to have been received as a result of misrepresentation in a proceeding pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 360 (2006). Miller asserts that the Workers’ Compensation Board lacked authority…”
Com. Union Ins. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 704 A.2d 358 (Me. 1997). · cites it 5× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(2) (Supp.1997). Commercial Union contends that, because the Board’s decision has a collateral estoppel effect in an action pending in the Superior Court, the Board’s denial of its motion to stay the Board proceedings constituted an infringement of its right…”
Washburn & Doughty v. Pottle (Me. Super. Ct 2007). · cites it 7× “According 1 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360 reads in pertinent part: 1.”
Cloutier-Hennigar v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 66-A, §218(5) and 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(2). R. at 82. On November 27, 1996, the Board found no indication that Petitioner was notified of her duty to report her earnings to Sheraton, as required by 39-A M.”
Warnaco, Inc. v. State of Maine, Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2003). · cites it 2× “Discussion The statutory basis for both the petition and the motion are found in 39-A M.RS.A. § 360. For purposes of the present case, the pertinent provisions of that section are as follows: § 360.”
Knapp v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2004). · cites it 2× “) On February 28, 2001, the AIU sent a letter to the parties regarding its determination that pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(2), petitioner’s complaints should be referred to a Hearing Officer for a Hearing.”
Maine Employers Mut. Ins. Co. v. State of Maine, Workers' Comp.Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “D’Andrea-Tripp’s employer filed a Petition for Penalties and repayment of all weekly benefits on October 24, 2001, pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360. Evidentiary hearings were held on August 1* and November 18" 2002.”
Boucher v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(2) (2010) (emphasis added).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 360(2) — 8 cases
Spellman v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D. Me. 2008). “MetLife, 34 on the other hand, focuses on the penalty provision that Spellman invoked in his petition to the Board, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(2), and claims that it conflicts impermissibly with ERISA enforcement remedies.”
Com. Union Ins. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 704 A.2d 358 (Me. 1997). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(2) (Supp.1997). Commercial Union contends that, because the Board’s decision has a collateral estoppel effect in an action pending in the Superior Court, the Board’s denial of its motion to stay the Board proceedings constituted an infringement of its right…”
Washburn & Doughty v. Pottle (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “According 1 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360 reads in pertinent part: 1.”
Cloutier-Hennigar v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2003). “§ 66-A, §218(5) and 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(2). R. at 82. On November 27, 1996, the Board found no indication that Petitioner was notified of her duty to report her earnings to Sheraton, as required by 39-A M.”
Knapp v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “) On February 28, 2001, the AIU sent a letter to the parties regarding its determination that pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(2), petitioner’s complaints should be referred to a Hearing Officer for a Hearing.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 360(3) — 4 cases
Guar. Fund Mgmt. Servs. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 678 A.2d 578 (Me. 1996). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 360 (Supp.1995) (emphasis added).”
Hartford Enter., Inc. v. Coty, 529 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D. Me. 2008). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(3); 90-351 Code of Maine Rules, ch.”
Com. Union Ins. v. Workers' Comp. Bd., 704 A.2d 358 (Me. 1997). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(2) (Supp.1997). Commercial Union contends that, because the Board’s decision has a collateral estoppel effect in an action pending in the Superior Court, the Board’s denial of its motion to stay the Board proceedings constituted an infringement of its right…”
Washburn & Doughty v. Pottle (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “According 1 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360 reads in pertinent part: 1.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 360(4) — 2 cases
D'Amato v. S.D. Warren Co., 2003 ME 116 (Me. 2003). “The only exception in the Workers’ Compensation Act to section 322 is set forth in 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(4) (2001), which expressly authorizes review in the Superior Court for certain penalty actions against employers and in *800 surers, and is inapplicable to this proceeding.”
Spellman v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D. Me. 2008). “MetLife, 34 on the other hand, focuses on the penalty provision that Spellman invoked in his petition to the Board, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 360(2), and claims that it conflicts impermissibly with ERISA enforcement remedies.”
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.