Constitutional Law: Standing

Flynn & Miller v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [07/01/10] 2010 MTWCC 21 Although Common Fund Insurers argued that Petitioners in Flynn lack standing to pursue claims against them because Petitioners were not personally injured by Common Fund Insurers and no case or controversy exists between Petitioners and Common Fund Insurers, the Court concluded that here, as in Schmill III, Petitioners’ attorney initiated an in rem action to adjudicate the common fund and Petitioners have standing to bring this in rem action.
Robinson v. Montana State Fund [06/29/05] 2005 MTWCC 33 Where the claimant has not been required to seek her medical care from a managed care organization or preferred provider organization, and there is no indication that she will ever be required to do so, she lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of statutes authorizing insurers to refer claimants to managed care organizations and preferred provider organizations for medical care related to their industrial injuries.
Robinson v. Montana State Fund [06/29/05] 2005 MTWCC 33 Only those affected by a statute can challenge the constitutionality of the statute.
Fellenberg v Transportation Ins. Co. [3/19/04] 2004 MTWCC 29 Constitutional challenges to statutes which do not govern a claimant's request for benefits will not be considered. Affirmed in Fellenberg v. Transportation Ins. Co., 2005 MT 90

Powell v. State Compensation Insurance Fund [2/4/99] 1999 MTWCC 10 The WCC will not consider a constitutional challenge to subsection (4) of section 39-71-1107, MCA (1995) where claimant has no claim under that subsection. Objections to standing cannot be waived and may be considered sua sponte by the Court.