Constitutional Law: Standing

Moreau v. Transportation Ins. Co. [04/08/14] 2014 MTWCC 9 In order for Petitioner to have standing in this matter, she must have a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation.  Since the claimant received his medical benefits and his medical providers were paid for providing his care, and since there is no indication that Petitioner can be held liable for reimbursing the Libby Medical Plan for the funds it expended for the claimant’s medical care, Petitioner has no personal stake in the outcome of litigation she filed against Respondent in an attempt to force Respondent to divest itself of those funds.

Gerber v. Montana State Fund [03/28/13] 2013 MTWCC 9 During oral argument Petitioner moved for the inclusion of an additional set of similarly situated classes of workers: (1) those incarcerated for greater than 30 days, who have a permanent impairment after reaching MMI and choose to receive their impairment award in a lump sum; and (2) those with the same criteria who choose to receive their impairment award in biweekly payments.  The usual standing requirement is that a party must allege past, present or threatened injury to property or to a civil right distinguishable from an injury to the general public.  Petitioner cannot allege an injury as a result of being a member of one of these two similarly situated classes, since regardless of whether his impairment award was paid biweekly or in a lump sum, it was fully paid to him months before he was incarcerated and he therefore lacks standing to raise the issue.

Goble v. Montana State Fund [03/28/13] 2013 MTWCC 8 During oral argument Petitioner moved for the inclusion of an additional set of similarly situated classes of workers: (1) those incarcerated for greater than 30 days, who have a permanent impairment after reaching MMI and choose to receive their impairment award in a lump sum; and (2) those with the same criteria who choose to receive their impairment award in biweekly payments.  The usual standing requirement is that a party must allege past, present or threatened injury to property or to a civil right distinguishable from injury to the general public.  Petitioner cannot allege an injury as a result of being a member of one of these two similarly situated classes, since the option of receiving his impairment award in a lump sum was not available to him under the 2003 WCA applicable to his claim.  Therefore, Petitioner lacks standing to raise an equal protection argument regarding these two classes of injured workers.
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.