Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17451 (2026)

Appeals

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Decision of chief executive officer. Any person aggrieved by a decision or ruling of the chief executive officer may appeal the decision or ruling to the board.

A. To appeal a person must apply in writing to the board within 30 days after receiving written notice of the chief executive officer's decision or ruling. [PL 1985, c. 801, §§ 5, 7 (NEW); PL 2021, c. 548, §548 (REV).]

B. In any appeal proceeding, the board may investigate and consider all issues of fact or law, including the reasons for the decision or ruling of the chief executive officer. [PL 1985, c. 801, §§ 5, 7 (NEW); PL 2021, c. 548, §45 (REV).]

C. The appeal proceeding is an adjudicatory proceeding within the meaning of chapter 375, subchapter IV. [PL 1985, c. 801, §§ 5, 7 (NEW).]

D. The board shall complete the appeal proceeding within 90 days of receiving the written application for appeal. [PL 1985, c. 801, §§ 5, 7 (NEW).]

[PL 1985, c. 801, §§ 5, 7 (NEW); PL 2021, c. 548, §45 (REV).]

2. Decision of board. Any person aggrieved by a decision or ruling of the board in an adjudicatory proceeding is entitled to judicial review of the decision or ruling in accordance with chapter 375, subchapter VII.

[PL 1985, c. 801, §§ 5, 7 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1985, c. 801, §§5,7 (NEW). PL 2021, c. 548, §45 (REV).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases, 1992–2018 · 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). · cites it 3× “5 M.R.S. § 17451 (2008). 2 The Board’s decision may be appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to section 17451(2) and M.”

Kelley v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 27 (Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “5 Kelley appealed the decision to the Board pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17451(1) (2008). [¶ 9] Kelley submitted additional medical information to the medical board, and on October 12, 2006, the medical board issued a fourth memorandum.”

Hale-Rice v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64 (Me. 1997). · cites it 3× “She appealed the Executive Director’s decision to the Board pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 17451 (1989). [¶4] In preparation for the appeal, a hearing officer, appointed by the Board, held a pre-hearing conference as permitted by MSRS regulations.”

Robert D. Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 115 (Me. 2016). “§ 17105(2)(C) (2015), and Rossig-nol appealed to the Board, see 5 M.R.S. § 17451(1) (2015). 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.”

Kennebec Cnty. v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2014 ME 26 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “” We do not view section 17451 as conferring subject matter jurisdiction to the Board in this case; it is the procedural mechanism authorizing the Board to consider appeals from decisions of the executive director that were properly before the executive director.”

Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “§§ 17921(1), 17924(1) (2016), and Jalbert appealed to the Board, see 5 M.R.S. § 17451 (2016). [¶7] A hearing was held before a hearing officer in February 2014 and the evidence was finally closed in April 2014.”

Porter v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 609 A.2d 1146 (Me. 1992). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 17451. The Board denied Porter’s appeal, and she, in turn, sought review of that decision in Superior Court pursuant to M.”

Rodriques v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 691 A.2d 1205 (Me. 1997). “Pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 17451 (1989), Rodriques appealed to the Retirement System Board of Trustees, and the matter was assigned to a hearing officer.”

Young v. Bd. of Trs. of Maine State Ret. Sys., 601 A.2d 86 (Me. 1992). · cites it 3× “” Young appealed the executive director’s decision to the MSRS Board of Trustees pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 17451(1) (1989). 6 At the hearing, Young testified at the request of the Board, but did not submit any additional evidence.”

Sara J.T. Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 91 (Me. 2016). “See 5 M.R.S. §§ 17451(1), 17925(4) (2015). Because the record does not compel a finding that Behr met her burden to prove that “it is impossible to perform the duties of [her] employment position,” 5 M.”

Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “§§ 17921(1), 17924(1) (2016), and Jalbert appealed to the Board, see 5 M.R.S. § 17451 (2016). [¶7] A hearing was held before a hearing officer in February 2014 and the evidence was finally closed in April 2014.”

Colby v. Bd. of Trs. for the Maine Publice Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2018). “Further, in contrast to both Jenness and Greenlaw, this case does not require the Court to analyze it under principles of res judicata, or what notice requirements are necessary for the doctrine to apply in administrative proceedings .”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17451(1) — 5 cases

Anderson v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134 (Me. 2009). “5 M.R.S. § 17451 (2008). 2 The Board’s decision may be appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to section 17451(2) and M.”

Robert D. Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 115 (Me. 2016). “§ 17105(2)(C) (2015), and Rossig-nol appealed to the Board, see 5 M.R.S. § 17451(1) (2015). 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.”

Kelley v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 27 (Me. 2009). “5 Kelley appealed the decision to the Board pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17451(1) (2008). [¶ 9] Kelley submitted additional medical information to the medical board, and on October 12, 2006, the medical board issued a fourth memorandum.”

Young v. Bd. of Trs. of Maine State Ret. Sys., 601 A.2d 86 (Me. 1992). “” Young appealed the executive director’s decision to the MSRS Board of Trustees pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 17451(1) (1989). 6 At the hearing, Young testified at the request of the Board, but did not submit any additional evidence.”

Sara J.T. Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 91 (Me. 2016). “See 5 M.R.S. §§ 17451(1), 17925(4) (2015). Because the record does not compel a finding that Behr met her burden to prove that “it is impossible to perform the duties of [her] employment position,” 5 M.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17451(1)(B) — 1 case

Kelley v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 27 (Me. 2009). “5 Kelley appealed the decision to the Board pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17451(1) (2008). [¶ 9] Kelley submitted additional medical information to the medical board, and on October 12, 2006, the medical board issued a fourth memorandum.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17451(1)(D) — 1 case

Hale-Rice v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64 (Me. 1997). “She appealed the Executive Director’s decision to the Board pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 17451 (1989). [¶4] In preparation for the appeal, a hearing officer, appointed by the Board, held a pre-hearing conference as permitted by MSRS regulations.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17451(2) — 3 cases

Hale-Rice v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64 (Me. 1997). “She appealed the Executive Director’s decision to the Board pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 17451 (1989). [¶4] In preparation for the appeal, a hearing officer, appointed by the Board, held a pre-hearing conference as permitted by MSRS regulations.”

Young v. Bd. of Trs. of Maine State Ret. Sys., 601 A.2d 86 (Me. 1992). “” Young appealed the executive director’s decision to the MSRS Board of Trustees pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 17451(1) (1989). 6 At the hearing, Young testified at the request of the Board, but did not submit any additional evidence.”

Chase v. City of Portland, 658 A.2d 661 (Me. 1995).

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.