Use Back Button to return to Index of Cases
2001 MTWCC 20 WCC No. 2000-0249
Case Summary: Citing section 39-71-710, MCA (1997), respondent moves for summary judgment with respect to claimant's request for permanent partial disability benefits, arguing that he is retired and therefore not entitled to the benefits. Held: The Court will only consider those facts which are set out separately and serially in compliance with Rule 24.5.329(3). Those facts fail to show that claimant is retired within the meaning of the section. Motion denied. Topics:
¶1 The matter before the Court is respondent's renewed motion for summary judgment regarding claimant's request for permanent partial disability benefits. The original motion was denied as untimely since it was filed after the deadline fixed in the original scheduling order. Following that Order, the parties agreed to a continuance, hence a new scheduling order issued, and the time for filing of motions for summary judgment was extended. The renewed motion was filed within the deadlines fixed by the latest scheduling order. (Order Resetting Scheduling Order, filed February 1, 2001.)
¶2 The renewed motion references and incorporates respondent's prior briefs. The alleged undisputed facts as set forth by respondent are as follows, although not in the order presented:(1)
Those are the only facts set out by ASARCO in compliance with Rule 24.5.329.(2) I do not consider other facts set out in narrative form in the body of ASARCO's brief since they do not comply with the rule. ¶3 On his part, claimant fails to set forth a "brief statement of genuine facts, setting forth the specific facts which the opposing party asserts establish a genuine issue of material fact . . . ." Rule 24.5.329(3). Claimant has also made representations concerning facts he will offer at trial.(3) Representations concerning prospective evidence are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact and are therefore disregarded. "When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Rule 24.5.329(7) The Court therefore accepts as true, for purposes of the motion, the limited facts set forth above.
¶4 ASARCO argues that the claim for permanent partial disability benefits is barred by section 39-71-710, MCA, which provides in relevant part:
The facts are insufficient to show that claimant is receiving "social security retirement benefits or is eligible to receive or is receiving full social security retirement benefits or retirement benefits from a system that is an alternative to social security retirement." The Court need not consider whether some other sort of "retirement" satisfies the section. The fact that claimant "retired" from ASARCO may mean nothing more than claimant resigned his job, and leaves open the possibility that he did so because he was physically unable to continue working in the job.
¶5 The motion for summary judgment is denied. DATED in Helena, Montana, this 8th day of May, 2001. (SEAL) \s\ Mike
McCarter c: Mr. Norman H. Grosfield 1. Respondent's Brief in Support of Its Motion For Summary Ruling. 2. Subsection (3) of the rule provides:
The facts set forth in the text are the only ones which are set forth in serial fashion with evidentiary support. 3. Petitioner's Brief in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment at 2. |
Use Back Button to return to Index of Cases