Constitutional Law: Due Process: Procedural Due Process

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Goble and Gerber v. Montana State Fund, 2014 MT 99 The claimants were afforded procedural due process where the insurer informed them in writing that their PPD benefits were being terminated pursuant to § 39-71-744(1), MCA, and they contested the termination in a hearing before the WCC in which they were represented by counsel with the opportunity to present evidence and argument.  Their ignorance of the existence of § 39-71-744(1), MCA, does not mean their procedural due process rights were violated.
Wiard v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 2003 MT 295 Insurer’s failure to inform pro se claimant of 60-month rule in section 39-71-704(1)(d), MCA (1991) did not violate claimant’s procedural due process rights.
Williams Insulation Co. Inc. v. Department of Labor and Industry, Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2003 MT 72 While the requirements of due process apply to administrative agencies such as the DOL, there was no denial of due process where the complaining party had waived its right to an evidentiary hearing and judicial review was accorded to DOL's conclusions of law.
Williams Insulation Co. Inc. v. Department of Labor and Industry, Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2003 MT 72 Where uninsured employer agreed to waive contested case hearing procedure, he could not later allege denial of due process surrounding the DOL's failure to give him an opportunity to participate in the earlier administrative review procedure.
Auto Parts of Bozeman v. Employment Relations Division, Uninsured Employer's Fund, 2001 MT 72. Allegedly uninsured employer not denied due process where DLI enforces UEF penalty assessment against alleged uninsured employer based on evidence that insurer reported lack of insurance coverage, without inquiring into whether policy existed under facts and applicable law. WCC reversed.
Grooms v. Ponderosa Inn, State Fund, and Department of Labor and Industry, 283 Mont. 459, 942 P.2d 699 (1997) Supreme Court affirmed WCC determination that State Compensation Insurance Fund's denial of claim for skin condition as injury and referral to Occupational Disease Panel did not deny claimant due process rights. While claimant argues the insurer denied her injury claim without hearing, she fails to recognize she could have mediated that denial and filed a petition with the Workers' Compensation Court. Instead, she went through a panel doctor examination and dropped the injury contention.
 
 
MONTANA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS
Flynn & Miller v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [07/01/10] 2010 MTWCC 21 Flynn common fund benefits arose automatically for beneficiaries as a result of the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Flynn I. Common Fund Insurers’ corresponding duty to pay arose automatically as a matter of law. Pursuant to the Montana Supreme Court’s holding in Schmill III, the Court concluded that enforcement of the Flynn global common fund against Common Fund Insurers does not violate their constitutional right to due process.
Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [12/11/08] 2008 MTWCC 52 A prospective demand letter sent to an uninsured employer by a UEF claims adjuster does not satisfy the due process requirements of § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA, and therefore does not comport with the requirements of § 39-71-506, MCA. Alleged uninsured employers are entitled to due process as specifically mandated by § 39-71-506, MCA, including the departmental procedure described in § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA.
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.

Hoff v. UEF and Laubach & Laubach [11/1/00] 2000 MTWCC 67 Procedural due process requires the Department 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.

Grooms v. Ponderosa Inn and State Fund [7/16/96] 1996 MTWCC 51 State Compensation Insurance Fund's denial of claim for skin condition as injury and referral to Occupational Disease Panel did not deny claimant due process rights. While claimant argues the insurer denied her injury claim without hearing, she fails to recognize she could have mediated that denial and filed a petition with the Workers' Compensation Court. Instead, she went through a panel doctor examination and dropped the injury contention. (Note: WCC was affirmed on this ground in Grooms v. Ponderosa Inn, 283 Mont. 459, 942 P.2d 699 (1997).)