Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17921 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

As used in this article, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings. [PL 1989, c. 409, §§8, 12 (NEW).]

1. Disabled. "Disabled" means that the member is mentally or physically incapacitated under the following conditions:

A. The incapacity is expected to be permanent; [PL 1989, c. 409, §§8, 12 (NEW).]

B. That the member is unable to perform the essential functions of the member's employment position with reasonable accommodation; [PL 2021, c. 277, §21 (AMD); PL 2021, c. 277, §45 (AFF).]

C. After the incapacity has continued for 2 years, the incapacity must render the member unable to engage in any substantially gainful activity for which the member is qualified by training, education or experience; and [PL 1989, c. 409, §§8, 12 (NEW).]

D. The incapacity may be revealed by examinations or tests conducted in accordance with section 17926. [PL 1989, c. 409, §§8, 12 (NEW).]

[PL 2021, c. 277, §21 (AMD); PL 2021, c. 277, §45 (AFF).]

2. Employment position. "Employment position" means:

A. The position in which the member is employed at the time the member becomes incapacitated; or [PL 1989, c. 409, §§8, 12 (NEW).]

B. A position of comparable stature and equal or greater compensation and benefits which is made available to the member by the member's employer. [PL 1989, c. 409, §§8, 12 (NEW).]

[PL 1989, c. 409, §§8, 12 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1989, c. 409, §§8,12 (NEW). PL 2021, c. 277, §21 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 277, §45 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases, 1996–2020 · 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 4× “§ 17106-A (2015), proposing a determination that Rossignol failed to establish that he was disabled pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17921(1), thereby affirming the Executive Director’s designee’s denial of disability retirement benefits.”

Anderson v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134 (Me. 2009). · cites it 3× “MPERS argues that although Anderson has shown that her impairments make it impossible for her to carry out her employment duties as an art teacher, she failed to prove that her incapacity is expected to be permanent, and therefore the Board properly denied her disability…”

Hale-Rice v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64 (Me. 1997). · cites it 2× “The Board’s Interpretation of 5 M.R.S.A § 17921 [¶ 9] An MSRS member, if disabled while in service, may qualify for disability retirement benefits.”

Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). · cites it 5× “The Executive Director’s des-ignee ultimately denied Jalbert’s applica *943 tion, see 5 M.R.S. §§ 17921(1), 17924(1) (2016), and Jalbert appealed to the Board, see 5 M.”

Douglas v. Bd. of Trs., 669 A.2d 177 (Me. 1996). “Title 5 M.R.S.A. § 17921(1)(B) (Supp.1994) provides in part: 1.”

Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). · cites it 4× “The Executive Director’s designee ultimately denied Jalbert’s application, see 5 M.R.S. §§ 17921(1), 17924(1) (2016), and Jalbert appealed to the Board, see 5 M.”

Stevens v. Bd. of Trs. for the Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2018). · cites it 2× “Petitioner appeals MPERS' December 8, 2016 adoption of the September 1, 2016 findings of the Hearing Officer, who determined that Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it was impossible for Petitioner to perform the duties of his employment…”

Girouard v. Maine State Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2004). · cites it 2× “Petitioner maintains that MSRS has offered no evidence disputing that she suffers from recurrent chest pain, discomfort, difficulty breathing and chronic fatigue.”

Campbell v. Maine State Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). · cites it 2× “In April 2004 1 Under 5 M.R.S.A. § 17921(1) "Disabled" means that the member is mentally or physically incapacitated under the following conditions: A.”

Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2015). · cites it 2× “On September 30, 2014, the Hearing Officer concluded that Rossignol failed to carry his burden to establish that he was disabled within the meaning of 5 M.R.S.A. § 17921(1). Thus, the Hearing Officer recommended that the Board of Trustees affirm the Executive Director's decision…”

Sara J.T. Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 91 (Me. 2016). “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.R.S. § 17921(1)(B) (2015), we affirm.”

Heath v. Bd. of Trs., MainePers (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “5 M.R.S. § 17921. The MERS Medical Board was established to provide expert advice to MPERS on the existence of physical and mental functional limitations entitling an applicant to benefits.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17921(1) — 10 cases

Anderson v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134 (Me. 2009). “MPERS argues that although Anderson has shown that her impairments make it impossible for her to carry out her employment duties as an art teacher, she failed to prove that her incapacity is expected to be permanent, and therefore the Board properly denied her disability…”

Robert D. Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 115 (Me. 2016). “§ 17106-A (2015), proposing a determination that Rossignol failed to establish that he was disabled pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17921(1), thereby affirming the Executive Director’s designee’s denial of disability retirement benefits.”

Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “The Executive Director’s des-ignee ultimately denied Jalbert’s applica *943 tion, see 5 M.R.S. §§ 17921(1), 17924(1) (2016), and Jalbert appealed to the Board, see 5 M.”

Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “The Executive Director’s designee ultimately denied Jalbert’s application, see 5 M.R.S. §§ 17921(1), 17924(1) (2016), and Jalbert appealed to the Board, see 5 M.”

Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2015). “On September 30, 2014, the Hearing Officer concluded that Rossignol failed to carry his burden to establish that he was disabled within the meaning of 5 M.R.S.A. § 17921(1). Thus, the Hearing Officer recommended that the Board of Trustees affirm the Executive Director's decision…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17921(1)(A) — 6 cases

Robert D. Rossignol v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 115 (Me. 2016). “§ 17106-A (2015), proposing a determination that Rossignol failed to establish that he was disabled pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17921(1), thereby affirming the Executive Director’s designee’s denial of disability retirement benefits.”

Anderson v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134 (Me. 2009). “MPERS argues that although Anderson has shown that her impairments make it impossible for her to carry out her employment duties as an art teacher, she failed to prove that her incapacity is expected to be permanent, and therefore the Board properly denied her disability…”

Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “The Executive Director’s des-ignee ultimately denied Jalbert’s applica *943 tion, see 5 M.R.S. §§ 17921(1), 17924(1) (2016), and Jalbert appealed to the Board, see 5 M.”

Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “The Executive Director’s designee ultimately denied Jalbert’s application, see 5 M.R.S. §§ 17921(1), 17924(1) (2016), and Jalbert appealed to the Board, see 5 M.”

Trattner v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2016).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17921(1)(B) — 2 cases

Douglas v. Bd. of Trs., 669 A.2d 177 (Me. 1996). “Title 5 M.R.S.A. § 17921(1)(B) (Supp.1994) provides in part: 1.”

Sara J.T. Behr v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2016 ME 91 (Me. 2016). “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.R.S. § 17921(1)(B) (2015), we affirm.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17921(1)(D) — 2 cases

Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “The Executive Director’s des-ignee ultimately denied Jalbert’s applica *943 tion, see 5 M.R.S. §§ 17921(1), 17924(1) (2016), and Jalbert appealed to the Board, see 5 M.”

Elizabeth T. Jalbert v. Maine Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2017 ME 69 (Me. 2017). “The Executive Director’s designee ultimately denied Jalbert’s application, see 5 M.R.S. §§ 17921(1), 17924(1) (2016), and Jalbert appealed to the Board, see 5 M.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17921(2) — 2 cases

Hale-Rice v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 1997 ME 64 (Me. 1997). “The Board’s Interpretation of 5 M.R.S.A § 17921 [¶ 9] An MSRS member, if disabled while in service, may qualify for disability retirement benefits.”

Campbell v. Maine State Ret. Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “In April 2004 1 Under 5 M.R.S.A. § 17921(1) "Disabled" means that the member is mentally or physically incapacitated under the following conditions: A.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 17921(l)(B) — 1 case

Steele v. Maine State Ret. (Me. Super. Ct 2008).

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.