Appellant

vs.

PLUM CREEK TIMBER COMPANY

Respondent.

Respondent seeks reconsideration of this Court's decision and judgment on appeal. It advances two grounds for reconsideration.

Respondent first argues that the appeal was limited to a review of the findings of fact below and that the Court exceeded the scope of appeal when it determined that the hearing examiner committed an error of law when applying section 39-72-706, MCA. I am perplexed by this contention. The Notice of Appeal states that petitioner is contesting the hearing examiner's findings of fact and conclusions of law as "clearly erroneous, an arbitrary abuse of discretion, and in error of law." Moreover, petitioner vigorously contended in his briefs on appeal that the hearing examiner erred in his apportionment of disability. Respondent's argument is meritless.

Respondent then urges that the Court erred in interpreting and applying apportionment and attorney fee statutes. After reviewing the various arguments advanced by respondent, I find no reason to change my decision.

The motion is denied.

Dated in Helena, Montana, this 13th day of September, 1995.

(SEAL)

/S/ Mike McCarter
JUDGE

c: Mr. David W. Lauridsen
Mr. Kelly M. Wills