Goble and Gerber v. Montana State Fund, 2014 MT 99 Appellants failed to meet their burden of proof in challenging the constitutionality of § 39-71-744, MCA.  Despite the assertion that the statute is purely punitive, the Montana Supreme Court found that sound policy decisions underlay the Legislature’s decision not to allow individuals who are not earning wages due to incarceration to continue to receive wage-loss benefits.

Satterlee v. Lumberman's Mut. Cas. Co. [11/03/09] 2009 MT 368 Although claimants who have worked less, and therefore do not qualify for SSRI, continue to collect PTD benefits while claimants who have worked more, and are therefore eligible for SSRI, have their PTD benefits terminated, the Montana Supreme Court concluded this does not rise to the level of an absurdity so that § 39-71-710, MCA, would be unconstitutional.  The identification of at least one possible legitimate purpose is enough to affirm the Workers’ Compensation Court without resulting in an absurdity.

Hegg v. Montana State Fund [10/10/16] 2016 MTWCC 14 The remedy in a case in which workers’ compensation benefits are insufficient to uphold the quid pro quo is to strike the employer’s exclusive remedy defense and allow the employee to proceed with a tort claim – a decision that is solely within the province of the district court in a civil action against the employer.  Where this Court cannot grant the claimant the remedy she seeks – i.e., to increase the amount of her benefits to an amount that would be sufficient – it will not rule on the claimant’s substantive due process challenge against § 39-71-721(2), MCA.

Gerber v. Montana State Fund [03/28/13] 2013 MTWCC 9 Section 39-71-744(1), MCA, does not violate Petitioner’s right to substantive due process for failing to satisfy the quid pro quo principle behind the WCA - the surrendering of the injured workers’ right to sue his employer in tort in exchange for disability benefits - since the Petitioner here received sufficiently significant benefits, in the form of temporary total disability prior to his incarceration and remains eligible for medical benefits, so as to satisfy the quid pro quo doctrine.

Gerber v. Montana State Fund [03/28/13] 2013 MTWCC 9 Section 39-71-744(1), MCA, does not violate Petitioner’s right to substantive due process, for the statute bears a rational relationship to the express legislative purpose of providing wage-loss benefits in a reasonable relationship to actual wages lost, and of returning a worker to work as quickly as possible after the worker has suffered an on-the-job injury or disease.  An incarcerated worker has voluntarily removed himself from the competitive labor market by committing a crime; he is not losing wages due to his injury, and he cannot return to work until released from jail or prison.

Goble v. Montana State Fund [03/28/13] 2013 MTWCC 8 Section 39-71-744(1), MCA, does not violate Petitioner’s right to substantive due process, for the statute bears a rational relationship to the express legislative purpose of providing wage-loss benefits in a reasonable relationship to actual wages lost, and of returning a worker to work as quickly as possible after the worker has suffered an on-the-job injury or disease. An incarcerated worker has voluntarily removed himself from the competitive labor market by committing a crime; he is not losing wages due to his injury, and he cannot return to work until released from jail or prison.