Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 5
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106-A (2026)

Use of hearing officers

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The board shall contract with qualified attorneys to act as hearing officers to implement the provisions of this chapter. Hearing officers are subject to the provisions of this section. Hearing officers are not employees of the board but independent contractors who serve as neutral and independent decision makers.   [PL 2021, c. 277, §16 (AMD); PL 2021, c. 277, §45 (AFF).]
1.  Independent decision makers.  All hearing officers are independent decision makers and are authorized to make recommended final decisions in regard to matters that come before them, consistent with applicable statutes and rules. A decision of the hearing officer must be based upon the record as a whole. The board shall accept the recommended decision of the hearing officer unless the recommended decision is not supported by the record as a whole, the retirement system is advised by the Attorney General that the hearing officer has made an error of law or the decision exceeds the authority or jurisdiction conferred upon the hearing officer. A decision of the board upon a recommended decision of the hearing officer constitutes final agency action. The board shall retain its decision-making authority in all retirement system policy areas.  
[PL 2009, c. 322, §7 (NEW).]
2.  No direct or indirect influence.  A party to the appeal, including the appellant, the board, the chief executive officer or the staff of the board may not exert direct or indirect influence on a hearing officer with regard to decisions of the hearing officer or the decision-making process.  
[PL 2009, c. 322, §7 (NEW); PL 2021, c. 548, §45 (REV).]
3.  Decision-making process.  In the course of the decision-making process, hearing officers may accept, reject or determine the amount of weight to be given any information offered into evidence, including, but not limited to, medical evidence submitted by any of the parties to the appeal.  
[PL 2009, c. 322, §7 (NEW).]
4.  Discussion of issues before the hearing officers.  All parties to an appeal, including the appellant, the board, the chief executive officer and the retirement system staff are prohibited from ex parte communication with the hearing officer. All parties, including the appellant, the board, the chief executive officer and the retirement system staff are prohibited from initiating or engaging in any discussion with a hearing officer regarding the substance of any pending case without first making all parties aware of the proposed contact and without also giving all parties the opportunity to participate in any communication.  
[PL 2009, c. 322, §7 (NEW); PL 2021, c. 548, §45 (REV).]
5.  Investigation.  The joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over public employee retirement matters shall monitor the compliance of the retirement system and all involved parties with regard to the use of hearing officers and the independence of hearing officers in the decision-making process. The joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over public employee retirement matters may request the Attorney General to conduct an investigation if a complaint is made by a hearing officer or any participating party regarding the independence of the hearing process.  
[PL 2017, c. 88, §17 (AMD).]
6.  Engagement and termination.  The board shall contract with only qualified hearing officers. A contract with a hearing officer may be terminated for misconduct. Retaliatory action of any kind, including reprimand or termination, may not be taken against a hearing officer on the basis of that hearing officer's having issued decisions contrary to the decision of the chief executive officer. In the event of termination, the retirement system shall set forth in writing the basis for the termination, the propriety of which may then be considered by the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over public employee retirement matters pursuant to subsection 5.  
[PL 2021, c. 277, §17 (AMD); PL 2021, c. 277, §45 (AFF); PL 2021, c. 548, §45 (REV).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 2009, c. 322, §7 (NEW). PL 2017, c. 88, §§17, 18 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 277, §§16, 17 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 277, §45 (AFF). PL 2021, c. 548, §45 (REV).
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 12 cases, 2013–2020 · leading case: Robert D. Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 115 (Me. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Robert D. Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 115 (Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “In September 2014, after holding a hearing that ran over the course of several months, a hearing officer issued a recommended final decision, see 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A (2015), proposing a determination that Rossignol failed to establish that he was disabled pursuant to 5 M.”
Reva Merrill v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2014 ME 100 (Me. 2014). · cites it 4× “On November 9, 2010, Board Counsel Mann informed Merrill that a new statutory provision, 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A (2013), 7 had become effective since the Board’s meeting in February 2009, and that this provision required the Board to adopt the hearing officer’s recommendation unless…”
Kennebec Cnty. v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2014 ME 26 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “See generally 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A (2013). Among other issues, the County argued before the Board that MPERS lacked jurisdiction to decide the employee election issues.”
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “After responding to the parties’ comments, in October 2014, the hearing officer issued a recommended final decision, see 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A (2016), which was supported by extensive findings of fact and concluded that Jalbert had not satisfied her burden of proving that her…”
Ghidoni v. Maine Pub. Employees Retirment Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2019). · cites it 4× “10) A few days after the hearing officer's decision, the System's attorney requested the Attorney General's Office to review the Recommended Decision for error, pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A. On August 8, 2018, the Attorney General's Office responded by letter, recommending…”
Kennebec Cnty. v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2013). · cites it 4× “5 M.R.S. § 17106-A (2009) After the first hearing, the hearing officer forwarded her recommendation to each of the parties for comment.”
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “After responding to the parties’ comments, in October 2014, the hearing officer issued a recommended final decision, see 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A (2016), which was supported by extensive findings of fact and concluded that Jalbert had not satisfied her burden of proving that her…”
Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2015). · cites it 2× “R.S. § 17106-A ("section 17106-A review").”
Sara J.T. Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 91 (Me. 2016). “§ 17106(4)(C) (2015) (contemplating that the Board will determine what weight to give the evidence); 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A(3) (2015) (permitting hearing officers to accept, reject, or determine the weight to be given any evidence).”
Stevens v. Bd. of Trs. for the Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2018). “3d 940 (quoting 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A(3)). Thus, the Court may not substitute its judgment for the Hearing Officer's on the factual question of the extent of Petitioner's functional 7 limitations.”
Gervais v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “See 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A. In February 2016, counsel for Mr.”
Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Retirment Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2015). “5 M.R.S. § 17106-A(1). In reaching a decision, the EDD, Hearing Officer and Board receive advice from the Medical Board.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106-A(1) — 3 cases
Reva Merrill v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2014 ME 100 (Me. 2014). “On November 9, 2010, Board Counsel Mann informed Merrill that a new statutory provision, 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A (2013), 7 had become effective since the Board’s meeting in February 2009, and that this provision required the Board to adopt the hearing officer’s recommendation unless…”
Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Retirment Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2015). “5 M.R.S. § 17106-A(1). In reaching a decision, the EDD, Hearing Officer and Board receive advice from the Medical Board.”
Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2015). “R.S. § 17106-A ("section 17106-A review").”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106-A(2) — 1 case
Kennebec Cnty. v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2013). “5 M.R.S. § 17106-A (2009) After the first hearing, the hearing officer forwarded her recommendation to each of the parties for comment.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106-A(3) — 2 cases
Sara J.T. Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 91 (Me. 2016). “§ 17106(4)(C) (2015) (contemplating that the Board will determine what weight to give the evidence); 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A(3) (2015) (permitting hearing officers to accept, reject, or determine the weight to be given any evidence).”
Stevens v. Bd. of Trs. for the Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2018). “3d 940 (quoting 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A(3)). Thus, the Court may not substitute its judgment for the Hearing Officer's on the factual question of the extent of Petitioner's functional 7 limitations.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106-A(4) — 1 case
Kennebec Cnty. v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2013). “5 M.R.S. § 17106-A (2009) After the first hearing, the hearing officer forwarded her recommendation to each of the parties for comment.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106-A(l) — 1 case
Ghidoni v. Maine Pub. Employees Retirment Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “10) A few days after the hearing officer's decision, the System's attorney requested the Attorney General's Office to review the Recommended Decision for error, pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17106-A. On August 8, 2018, the Attorney General's Office responded by letter, recommending…”
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.