Constitutional Law: Vagueness

Benton v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [12/03/09] 2009 MTWCC 37 Where the Petitioner need not have guessed at the meaning of the “determination of the department” referenced in the statute since she had rejected both the mediator’s recommendation and the UEF’s determination, her required conduct – petitioning the Workers’ Compensation Court within 60 days – was sufficiently defined and therefore, § 39-71-520(2), MCA, is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to her case.

Weidow v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [12/31/08] 2008 MTWCC 56 Section 39-71-520(2), MCA, is unconstitutional because it is so ambiguous that it is void for vagueness. It can reasonably be interpreted to mean that either the Uninsured Employer’s Fund’s determination or the mediator’s report become final if a petition is not filed within 60 days, and individuals of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at this section’s meaning.