Claims: Sufficiency

Redmond v. Montana State Fund [04/14/05] 2005 MTWCC 20 A claim for an occupational disease encompasses any subsequent progression of the disease. Separate claims need not be filed as other parts of the body are affected by the disease.

Samuel J. Grenz v. Fire & Casualty of Connecticut [11/9/99] 1999 MTWCC 70 In context of repeated litigation from claimant, present claim for OD benefits based on 1984 claim rejected where 1984 claim stated only: "Bumped his elbow on steel railing on the hand guard. It became extremely sensitive." A claim for compensation need not make technical differentiation between injury and occupational disease, but must provide sufficient information to inform the employer and insurer of the nature and basis of the claim. He 1984 claim made no reference to microtrauma injuries claimant now alleges were encompassed within that claim.

Guedesse v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company [3/12/97] 1997 MTWCC 10 Where the claim form signed by claimant did not state any specific event or any specific time or place for an alleged injury, it fails to identify an industrial accident or injury within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act. The "automatic acceptance" rule of Haag v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Authority, 274 Mont. 109, 906 P.2d 693 (1995) comes into play only if the insurer has received a valid claim for injury, containing sufficient information to inform the employer and insurer of the nature and basis of the claim. As the insurer argues, the claim submitted in this case, at best, suggests claimant is suffering from an occupational disease, and the insurer accepted the claim as such.