|
IN THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION
COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2000
MTWCC 21
WCC
No. 9912-8392
SAMUEL
G. DEAN
Petitioner
vs.
MONTANA
POWER COMPANY
Respondent/Insurer/Employer.
ORDER REGARDING JURISDICTION
AND FURTHER PLEADINGS
Summary:
Pretrial hearing held on whether WCC has original jurisdiction
to hear claimant's request for extension of medical benefits under
law in effect in 1973, section 92-706.1, RCM (1947).
Held:
Where statute in effect at time of injury has been repealed or amended,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 govern. Thus, WCC has
jurisdiction over this dispute where no current statute continues
such jurisdiction elsewhere.
Topics:
Constitutions,
Statutes, Regulations and Rules: Montana Code: 92-706.1, RCM (1947).
Where statute in effect at time of work injury has been repealed or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 where no current statute continues said jurisdiction in Division,
which no longer exists, or places such jurisdiction in Department
of Labor.
Adminisrative
Agencies: Jurisdiction. 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injury has been repealed or amended, the statute still applies to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.
Jurisdiction:
Original Jurisdiction. 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injury has been repealed or amended, the statute still applies to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 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.
Jurisdiction:
Where Procedural Statute Repealed. 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 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.
¶1 After hearing
the parties' arguments on the petitioner's Request for Hearing and Motion
for Leave to present additional evidence, and discussing amendments
to the pleadings with counsel, the Court finds and
orders as follows:
- The Workers' Compensation
Court has original jurisdiction to hear the petitioner's request
for extension of medical benefits and shall therefore hold an evidentiary
hearing into that matter.
- Petitioner may amend
his petition to add any other benefits disputes he may have regarding
his claim.
- The amended petition
shall be filed within 10 days of this Order, after which a Scheduling
Order will be issued.
- A response to the amended
petition shall be filed as set forth in the Scheduling Order.
Discussion
¶2 Petitioner appealed from
a Department decision denying his request to extend the period of his
medical benefits. The request arises under 1973 law, specifically section
92-706.1, RCM (1947). The section provides in relevant part:
92-706.1.
Medical and hospital services approved by the division are furnished.
In addition to the compensation provided by this act and as an additional
benefit separate and apart from compensation, the following shall be
furnished:
During the first thirty-six(36)
months after the happening of the injury, the employer or insurer shall
furnish reasonable services by a physician or surgeon, reasonable hospital
services and medicines when needed, and such other treatment as may
be approved by the division for the injuries sustained. The division,
upon application of the injured workman may, for good cause, grant reasonable
extensions of the benefits provided in this section.
¶3 Petitioner sought an extension
of medical benefits with respect to a 1974 ankle injury. Since the Division
of Workers' Compensation was eliminated in 1989, and its responsibilities
assumed by the Department of Labor and Industry, 1989 Montana Laws, ch.
613, he submitted his request to the Department. A Benefits Examiner of
the Department issued an initial order denying the claim. (Order Denying
Extension of Medical Benefits, December 3, 1999 (Department File).)
¶4 Thereafter, uncertain of
the proper forum for seeking a hearing regarding his request, the petitioner
appealed the decision to the Department and filed a petition
with this Court.(1) Citing 1999 amendments
to the Workers' Compensation Act, the Department notified claimant and
Montana Power that in light of the 1999 amendments the matter would be
transferred to the Court unless either party elected to keep the proceeding
before the Department. Neither party elected to do so and the appeal was
transferred to the Court. Thus, the Court has before it both the petition
and the so-called appeal.
¶5 The matter presently before
the Court is petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing. The Court
met with counsel on March 31, 2000, to discuss the motion. At that time,
both parties agreed that the Court has jurisdiction to conduct an evidentiary
hearing. I concur.
¶6 Jurisdiction to hear a controversy
is a procedural matter and current procedures apply. State Compensation
Ins. Fund v. Sky Country, Inc., 239 Mont. 376, 780 P.2d 1135 (1989).
Section 92-706.1, RCM (1947), has been repealed or amended. Insofar as
it provided substantive rights -- i.e., the right to medical benefits
for 36 months and to extended benefits for good cause - the statute still
applies. However, its procedural provision designating the Division as
the forum for seeking an extension of benefits no longer applies. Instead,
current dispute resolution provisions apply. Those provisions vest original
jurisdiction over all benefits disputes in the Court unless the Workers'
Compensation Act specifically provides otherwise.(2)
Since there is no longer any
provision providing for jurisdiction in either the Division, which no
longer exists, or the Department, the general jurisdictional provisions
apply. Accordingly, the Court is the proper forum for a hearing on petitioner's
request.
DATED in Helena, Montana,
this 11th day of April, 2000.
(SEAL)
/s/ Mike
McCarter
JUDGE
c: Mr. Charles G. Adams
Mr. W. Wayne Harper
Submitted: March 31, 2000
1. Both
the petition and the appeal were filed December 30, 1999.
2. Section
39-71-2905(1), MCA (1999), provides in relevant part:
39-71-2905. Petition
to workers' compensation judge -- time limit on filing. (1)
A claimant or an insurer who has a dispute concerning any benefits under
chapter 71 of this title may petition the workers' compensation judge
for a determination of the dispute after satisfying dispute resolution
requirements otherwise provided in this chapter.
Section 39-71-2401, MCA (1999),
provides in relevant part:
39-71-2401. Disputes
-- jurisdiction -- settlement requirements -- mediation. (1)
A dispute concerning benefits arising under this chapter or chapter
72, other than the disputes described in subsection (2), must be brought
before a department mediator as provided in this part. If a dispute
still exists after the parties satisfy the mediation requirements in
this part, either party may petition the workers' compensation court
for a resolution.
(2) A dispute arising under
this chapter that does not concern benefits or a dispute for which a
specific provision of this chapter gives the department jurisdiction
must be brought before the department.
|
