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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106 (2026)

Medical board

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1985, c. 801, §§5,7 (NEW). PL 1989, c. 409, §§1,2,12 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 643, §4 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 491, §79 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 322, §6 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 88, §§14-16 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 277, §15 (RP). PL 2021, c. 277, §45 (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 14 cases, 1992–2020 · leading case: Anderson v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134 (Me. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Anderson v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134 (Me. 2009). “[¶ 12] Pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(B) (2008), the Board designated a panel of three physicians, referred to as the “medical board,” to assist it in considering the appeal.”
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). · cites it 8× “§ 17106(4)(B) (“Explicit or implicit preferential weight may not be afforded any medical evidence or source of evidence, whether provided by the retirement system, its medical board or contracted examiners, or by any member .”
Kelley v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 27 (Me. 2009). “5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(D) (2008). The medical board is not a third-party witness who provides expert testimony at a hearing; rather, the medical board is an advisor to MPERS, providing its report and information directly to the executive director and Board.”
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). · cites it 6× “See 5 M.R.S. § 17106 (2008). In a decision that applied that earlier formulation of the statute, we held that the medical board’s memoranda do not rise to the level of “prefiled testimony” that triggers the applicant’s statutory right to cross-examine the medical board’s members.”
Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2015). · cites it 7× “See 5 M.R.S. § 17106. Recommended Decision contained no errors of law, was supported by the record as a whole, and did not exceed the hearing officer's authority or jurisdiction.”
Young v. Bd. of Trs. of Maine State Ret. Sys., 601 A.2d 86 (Me. 1992). · cites it 2× “3 The MSRS Medical Board, in discharge of its duties under 5 M.R.S.A. § 17106 (1989), 4 reviewed Young’s file and gave its opinion to the executive director.”
Sara J.T. Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 91 (Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “[¶ 5] In addition, the Board found that Behr’s evidence regarding her alleged *583 functional limitations was less persuasive than the medical board’s reports, see 5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(D) (2015), which the Board properly considered as evidence, see Kelley, 2009 ME 27, ¶25 , 967 A.”
Gervais v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2020). · cites it 2× “In accordance with the procedure used by MPERS, the Deputy Executive Director reviewed the entire record, including the transcript of the testimonial hearing and the advisory opinions of the Medical Board (5 M.R.S. § 17106). On December 9, 2016, the Deputy Executive Director…”
Ratajczak-Leaman v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S.A. § 17106(1). The respondent's Board of Trustees must"designate a medical board or boards each to be composed of 3 physicians not eligible to participate in the retirement system.”
Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Retirment Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2015). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S. § 17106(3). In particular, The medical board .”
Heath v. Bd. of Trs., MainePers (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “See 5 M.R.S. §§ 17106, 17106-A. Furthermore, the Board is permitted to accord weight to the Medical Board's opinion that Petitioner's complaints of glare were unlikely to have arisen from glaucoma and visual field loss diagnosed many years prior.”
Ouellette v. The Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(D) provides: The medical board or other physician designated by the board shall, at the request of the executive director, review the file of an applicant for disability retirement and as required shall report on any or all of the following: D.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106(1) — 1 case
Ratajczak-Leaman v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “5 M.R.S.A. § 17106(1). The respondent's Board of Trustees must"designate a medical board or boards each to be composed of 3 physicians not eligible to participate in the retirement system.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106(3) — 2 cases
Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Retirment Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2015). “5 M.R.S. § 17106(3). In particular, The medical board .”
Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2015). “See 5 M.R.S. § 17106. Recommended Decision contained no errors of law, was supported by the record as a whole, and did not exceed the hearing officer's authority or jurisdiction.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106(3)(B) — 3 cases
Anderson v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134 (Me. 2009). “[¶ 12] Pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(B) (2008), the Board designated a panel of three physicians, referred to as the “medical board,” to assist it in considering the appeal.”
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “§ 17106(4)(B) (“Explicit or implicit preferential weight may not be afforded any medical evidence or source of evidence, whether provided by the retirement system, its medical board or contracted examiners, or by any member .”
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “See 5 M.R.S. § 17106 (2008). In a decision that applied that earlier formulation of the statute, we held that the medical board’s memoranda do not rise to the level of “prefiled testimony” that triggers the applicant’s statutory right to cross-examine the medical board’s members.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106(3)(D) — 10 cases
Kelley v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 27 (Me. 2009). “5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(D) (2008). The medical board is not a third-party witness who provides expert testimony at a hearing; rather, the medical board is an advisor to MPERS, providing its report and information directly to the executive director and Board.”
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “§ 17106(4)(B) (“Explicit or implicit preferential weight may not be afforded any medical evidence or source of evidence, whether provided by the retirement system, its medical board or contracted examiners, or by any member .”
Sara J.T. Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 91 (Me. 2016). “[¶ 5] In addition, the Board found that Behr’s evidence regarding her alleged *583 functional limitations was less persuasive than the medical board’s reports, see 5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(D) (2015), which the Board properly considered as evidence, see Kelley, 2009 ME 27, ¶25 , 967 A.”
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “See 5 M.R.S. § 17106 (2008). In a decision that applied that earlier formulation of the statute, we held that the medical board’s memoranda do not rise to the level of “prefiled testimony” that triggers the applicant’s statutory right to cross-examine the medical board’s members.”
Ouellette v. The Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(D) provides: The medical board or other physician designated by the board shall, at the request of the executive director, review the file of an applicant for disability retirement and as required shall report on any or all of the following: D.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106(4) — 2 cases
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “§ 17106(4)(B) (“Explicit or implicit preferential weight may not be afforded any medical evidence or source of evidence, whether provided by the retirement system, its medical board or contracted examiners, or by any member .”
Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “See 5 M.R.S. § 17106 (2008). In a decision that applied that earlier formulation of the statute, we held that the medical board’s memoranda do not rise to the level of “prefiled testimony” that triggers the applicant’s statutory right to cross-examine the medical board’s members.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106(4)(A) — 1 case
Gervais v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “In accordance with the procedure used by MPERS, the Deputy Executive Director reviewed the entire record, including the transcript of the testimonial hearing and the advisory opinions of the Medical Board (5 M.R.S. § 17106). On December 9, 2016, the Deputy Executive Director…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106(4)(C) — 1 case
Sara J.T. Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 91 (Me. 2016). “[¶ 5] In addition, the Board found that Behr’s evidence regarding her alleged *583 functional limitations was less persuasive than the medical board’s reports, see 5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(D) (2015), which the Board properly considered as evidence, see Kelley, 2009 ME 27, ¶25 , 967 A.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17106(4)(D) — 1 case
Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2015). “See 5 M.R.S. § 17106. Recommended Decision contained no errors of law, was supported by the record as a whole, and did not exceed the hearing officer's authority or jurisdiction.”
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.