Limitations Periods: Petition Filing
MONTANA
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS |
Preston
v. Transportation Ins. Co. [12/01/04]
2004 MT 339 (No. 02-522) Petition for meditation before the Department
of Labor pursuant to section 39-71-2401, MCA, et seq., is not
commencement of an action for purposes of meeting the two-year statute
of limitations for filing a claim to reopen a workers’ compensation
settlement. |
WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS |
Baker
v. Transportation Ins. Co. [02/01/07] 2007 MTWCC 6
It would make little sense for this Court to require Petitioner to attempt
to resolve a dispute concerning medical benefits when the entire claim
was denied based on an ostensible running of the statute of limitations.
It would have been futile for Petitioner to attempt any further piecemeal
resolution of the claim after the claim was denied in its entirety based
on a statute of limitations. Courts do not require exhaustion of administrative
remedies when doing so would be futile. Mountain Water Co. v. Montana
Dept. of Pub. Serv. Regulation, 2005 MT 84, 326 Mont. 416, 420, 110
P.3d 20, 22. |
Auchenbach
v. UEF [03/29/06] 2006 MTWCC 13 The Court found the elements
of estoppel by silence and equitable estoppel satisfied where the UEF
had a statutory duty to notify the mediation unit of its acceptance
or rejection of a mediation recommendation within twenty-five days under
§ 39-71-520(2), MCA, failed to notify the mediation unit of its
acceptance or rejection, let the sixty-day statute of limitation for
filing a petition with the Court under § 39-71-2411(6), MCA, run
on a pro sé claimant, and moved to dismiss based on the claimant’s
failure to file her claim within sixty days of the mailing of the mediator’s
recommendation. |
Auchenbach
v. UEF [03/29/06] 2006 MTWCC 13 As a fundamental matter
of equity, the Court cannot allow a party to sit on its hands while
a time limitation runs on a pro sé petitioner while, at the same
time, ignoring its own affirmative statutory duty to act. |
Re:
Annetta Laundry [08/12/05] 2005 MTWCC 49 Where an insurer
initially denies a claim but thereafter agrees to pay medical bills
under section 39-71-615, MCA (1999), the subsequent agreement supercedes
the original denial, in effect rescinding it, and places the claim in
a status of being neither accepted nor denied. Therefore, until there
is a second denial pursuant to section 39-71-615(3), MCA (1999), the
two-year limitations period for filing a petition in the Workers’
Compensation Court does not commence running. |
Kessel
v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [08/04/05] 2005 MTWCC 45
In occupational disease cases, the two-year limitations period prescribed
by section 39-71-2905(2), MCA (1995-2003), begins to run only after
the medical panel evaluation required in section 39-72-602, MCA (2001),
has been held, a panel report issued, and the insurer has denied liability
after reviewing the report. The limitations period is not triggered
by a pre-panel denial of liability. |
Fleming
v. International Paper [07/08/05] 2005 MTWCC 34 The statute
requiring the claimant to petition the Workers’ Compensation Court
for benefits within two years of an insurer’s denial of benefits,
§ 39-71-2905(2), MCA (1997-2003), is tolled during mediation. See
Preston v. Transportation Ins. Co., 2004 MT 339, 324 Mont. 225, 102
P.3d 527. |
Steck
v. Liberty Mutual Northwest [3/10/03] 2003 MTWCC 17 Petition
seeking medical benefits is time barred under section 39-71-2905(2),
MCA, where commenced more than 2 years after the denial of the benefits.
However, the bar does not extend to medical benefits which were not
within the scope of the denial. |
James
v. UEF [10/22/02] 2002 MTWCC 51 Section 39-71-520, MCA, requires
that following a benefits determination by the Uninsured Employers'
Fund an aggrieved party must request mediation within 90 days, otherwise
the determination is final. Since mediation is a prerequisite to filing
a petition in the Workers' Compensation Court, §§ 39-71-2401(1), -2408(1),
and -2905, MCA, a failure to request mediation within 90 days bars the
Court from reviewing the UEF determination. |