MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS:
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS:
MacGillivray v. Montana State Fund [10/04/16] 2016 MTWCC 13 Where § 39-71-605(2), MCA, allows an insurer to seek an order compelling attendance at an IME from either the Workers' Compensation Court or DLI, and DLI fully exercised its jurisdiction over Petitioner's attendance at a scheduled IME before Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing her Petition for Hearing, DLI's jurisdiction is not divested.
New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Matejovsky [08/07/15] 2015 MTWCC 15 Where an insurer argued that it only “suspended” a claimant’s TTD benefits for “unreasonably” refusing to attend an IME exam unless she was allowed to videotape it, which the doctor refused, DLI had jurisdiction to order interim benefits since the use of the word “terminates” in § 39-71-710, MCA, means to “stop paying benefits,” which the insurer did.
Dean v. Montana Power Company [4/11/00] 2000 MTWCC 21 Where statute in effect at time of work injury has been repealed or amended, the statute still applies to substantive rights (here, the right to medical benefits for 36 months and to extended benefits for good cause), but current procedures for dispute resolution apply. Thus, WCC had jurisdiction to resolve dispute over extension of medical benefits under section 92-706.1, RCM (1947) where no current statute continues said jurisdiction in Division, which no longer exists, or places such jurisdiction in Department of Labor.
Montana Schools Group Workers' Compensation Risk Retention Program v. Department of Labor and Industry/Employment Relations Division [6/9/98] 1998 MTWCC 48 Following parties' request that WCC reconsider its orders in Montana Schools Group Workers' Compensation Risk Retention Program v. Department of Labor and Industry/Employment Relations Division, 1998 MTWCC 31, WCC concludes it should not have ordered an evidentiary hearing on direct costs, but should once again remand the matter to the DOL for rulemaking. The Court's view on the validity of the DOL position on direct costs does not change and is reiterated. While the Court agrees with the DOL that the rulemaking process does not require the DOL to hold a contested case hearing, make findings of fact, and provide a detailed explanation for its rules, the nature of rulemaking under section 39-71-201, MCA (1991) requires the Department to establish some sort of factual basis for its determination as to what costs do and do not constitute direct costs. Otherwise, the Department would be free to disregard and nullify statutory criteria it is required to implement.
MSG v. DOL [4/21/98] 1998 MTWCC 31 In this case involving insurer's challenge of assessment levied against it by Department of Labor, WCC held DOL failed to consider directive of section 39-71-201, MCA (1991), to consider allocation of direct costs when making rules. The rules were therefore invalid.
Montana Schools Group Workers Compensation Risk Retention Program v. Dep't of Labor and Industry Employment Relations Division [06/16/95] 1995 MTWCC 48 The method used by the Department of Labor and Industry to assess fees against insurers and self-insurers to fund government costs of administering the Workers’ Compensation and Occupational Disease Acts amounts to a de facto agency rule. Where section 39-71-201, MCA (1991) has left significant regulatory details to agency discretion and that discretion could be exercised in different manners, each impacting segments of the public differently, the assessment methodology must be adopted by rule following statutory rulemaking requirements (Montana Administrative Procedures Act). Once a rule is adopted, school district self-insurance association is entitled to have its 1992 assessment recomputed and to receive either a refund or credit if appropriate.