MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS:
Auto Parts of Bozeman v. Employment Relations Division, Uninsured Employer's Fund, 2001 MT 72. Supreme Court decision. Hearing officer correctly determined DLI did not have jurisdiction to inquire into contractual dispute between allegedly uninsured employer and State Compensation Insurance Fund over whether policy was in effect; thus allegedly uninsured employer could not defend against assessment of penalty by UEF on ground that it had in fact been insured. Action in district court necessary to challenge insurer's determination that policy not in effect. WCC reversed.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS:
Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [09/19/08] 2008 MTWCC 45 Until a departmental order is issued pursuant to § 39-71-2401(2), MCA, and appealed to this Court pursuant to § 39-71-2401(3), MCA, the due process requirements of § 39-71-506, MCA, have not been met as it pertains to a claim for reimbursement made by the UEF against an uninsured employer.
Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [09/19/08] 2008 MTWCC 45 Section 39-71-506, MCA, sets forth the procedure by which the UEF would assert a claim for reimbursement against an uninsured employer. This statute mandates that the due process requirements of § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA, must first be met. Section 39-71-2401(2), MCA, requires the dispute to be brought before the Department of Labor and Industry, and § 39-71-2401(3), MCA, provides that an appeal from the departmental decision may be made to this Court.
Gomez v. MMIA [01/27/95] 1995 MTWCC 6 Where the insurer has accepted liability, but disputes arise as to amount and nature of benefits, the procedures of sections 39-72-602 and -611, MCA (1991), leading to a Department of Labor and Industry order and hearing, are not applicable. In those situations, sections 39-71-2401 and -2411, provide the Workers’ Compensation Court with original jurisdiction over disputes over benefits under the Occupational Disease Act following mediation. However, because the 1991 version of section 39-72-405, MCA authorized “the department” to allow compensation of up to $10,000 under that statute, and Carmichael v. Workers’ Compensation Court, 234 Mont. 410 (1988) does not allow this Court to apply new statutory provisions to claimant’s request under section 405, that dispute must first be heard in the Department of Labor.
State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Willard E. Vannett [7/23/99] 1999 MTWCC 44 Where State Fund did not present good reasons for failing to present IME in proceeding before DOL, motion to present additional evidence denied.
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Bates [3/16/98] 1998 MTWCC 24 While the Montana Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA) requires an evidentiary hearing in contested cases (§2-4-601, MCA), it does not prohibit summary rulings where there are no evidentiary facts of consequence in dispute.
Partin v. State Fund [3/14/97] 1997 MTWCC 11 DOL hearing officer did not err in refusing to allow claimant to present at a date following the date set for hearing telephonic testimony of a witness not listed by claimant, even though the witness had been listed by the respondent-insurer. If claimant had been permitted to introduce the testimony, it would have been necessary to allow respondent to produce rebuttal testimony, extending and delaying the hearing.
Wingfield v. State Compensation Ins. Fund [05/19/95] 1995 MTWCC 37 While claimant’s pro se status at the Department hearing is not sufficient to permit his introduction of new evidence following the hearing, vocational testimony presented at the hearing constituted new information and unfair surprise in light of prior information available to claimant, justifying presentation of new evidence.
Wingfield v. State Compensation Ins. Fund [05/19/95] 1995 MTWCC 37 Although Workers’ Compensation Court rule 24.5.350(4) contemplates acceptance of new evidence in the Workers’ Compensation Court on appeal from a decision of the Department of Labor and Industry, where claimant has shown entitlement to present new evidence, controversy over appropriate rehabilitation option for claimant is more appropriately remanded to the Department hearing officer, a procedure contemplated by section 2-4-703, MCA.
MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS:
Bare v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 1998 MT 106 Supreme Court affirmed WCC conclusion that WCC lacked jurisdiction to determine claimant's disability status under the 1989 WCA where claimant had failed to exhaust the rehabilitation panel procedures under sections 39-71-1012 through 39-71-1033, MCA (1989). The WCC had determined that the Department of Labor had original jurisdiction to assess return-to-work options for claimant. If the DOL made a final decision, the WCC had appellate jurisdiction on challenge of that decision; it had original jurisdiction only when the DOL determined that none of the statutory return-to-work options were appropriate. In agreeing, the Supreme Court concluded that the statutory rehabilitation panel procedures were "dispute resolution require-ments" under section 39-71-2905, MCA (1989), meaning the WCC had jurisdiction over the dispute only after those requirements were satisfied.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS:
Baker v. Transportation Ins. Co. [02/01/07] 2007 MTWCC 6 It would make little sense for this Court to require Petitioner to attempt to resolve a dispute concerning medical benefits when the entire claim was denied based on an ostensible running of the statute of limitations. It would have been futile for Petitioner to attempt any further piecemeal resolution of the claim after the claim was denied in its entirety based on a statute of limitations. Courts do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies when doing so would be futile. Mountain Water Co. v. Montana Dept. of Pub. Serv. Regulation, 2005 MT 84, 326 Mont. 416, 420, 110 P.3d 20, 22.
Bare v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company [7/23/99] 1999 MTWCC 45 Insurer moved to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before Rehabilitation Panel. Record indicated that DOL hearing officer had ruled that Rehabilitation Panel's finding was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded to the Rehabilitation Panel. Where claimant did not exhaust remedies before Rehabilitation Panel, petition dismissed.
Hart v. State Fund [8/26/96] 1996 MTWCC 58 In case alleging 1995 injury, claimant failed to exhaust contested case procedure before DOL where he filed appeal from DOL's denial of his request for an extension of time, but had not requested a hearing on that denial within the DOL.
Hoff v. UEF and Laubach & Laubach [11/1/00] 2000 MTWCC 67 Procedural due process requires the Department of Labor and Industry to provide the employer, insurer, and/or UEF, as the case may be, with written notice of its determination waiving the one-year limitations period so that those affected parties have an opportunity to request a hearing. Moreover, for the Department's determination to garner any respect, notice should be given to all interested parties prior to any determination.
Baxter v. UEF [9/20/00] 2000 MTWCC 65 Failure of Workers' Compensation Assistance Bureau to give employer and Uninsured Employers' Fund notice of claimant's application for waiver of one-year limitation period and action granting waiver raise grave due process concerns.