Procedure: Emergency Petition

Lyons v. Montana State Fund [04/26/06] 2006 MTWCC 17 Where Petitioner asserts he is “permanently disabled, unable to pay his medical bills and unable to do his job of injury,” but offers no details or support for this allegation, Petitioner’s pleading is insufficient to demonstrate good cause for an emergency setting.

Travelers Insurance Co. v. Ulrich-Goodwin [04/27/06] 2006 MTWCC 18 Good cause for an emergency setting has not been demonstrated where Petitioner seeks a declaratory ruling ordering Respondent to travel from Kalispell to Bozeman for an IME without alleging sufficient detail in its petition from which the Court might find that an examination in Bozeman is as close to Respondent’s residence as practical, as required by § 39-71-605(1)(b), MCA.

Rogers v. Montana State Fund [12/21/05] 2005 MTWCC 58 In order to determine whether good cause exists for the setting of an emergency trial, ARM 24.5.311 requires that “[f]acts constituting the emergency must be set forth in the petition in sufficient detail for the court to determine whether an actual emergency exists.” Absent sufficient detail, a request for emergency petition is denied.

Peterson v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Authority [06/02/05] 2005 MTWCC 30 Where the claimant filed a previous petition and did not allege an emergency; the trial setting for that prior petition was continued three times; and the claimant ultimately dismissed his prior petition to enable him to file a new, second petition adding a claim for attorney fees, there is no emergency with respect to the second petition.

Peterson v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Authority [06/02/05] 2005 MTWCC 30 Rule 24.5.311 of the Rules of the Workers’ Compensation Court requires a petitioner seeking an emergency trial setting to set forth in the petition sufficient facts showing that an emergency setting is necessary. Where the petition sets out no facts supporting the request, the request will be denied.

Loop v. Mid-Century Ins. & State Fund [5/30/01] 2001 MTWCC 28 Claimant's post-petition cancellation of an appointment with the surgeon he anticipates will do surgery because the appointment is "too late in the afternoon" is inconsistent with his prosecution of his petition on an emergency basis.

Loop v. Mid-Century Ins. & State Fund [5/30/01] 2001 MTWCC 28 Mere allegation of need for surgery is not sufficient to set trial on emergency basis where medical records and recommendations tendered to the Court do not support either a need for surgery or the urgency of surgery.

Crawford v. State Fund [5/29/01] 2001 MTWCC 26 Where claimant's benefits were cut off more than a year prior to his petitioning the Court for reinstatement of benefits, the Court will not set a trial on an emergency basis.

Schelin v. Cigna [3/21/00] 2000 MTWCC 14 Requirement that parties mediate workers compensation dispute prior to filing petition in WCC is jurisdictional. Petition asking WCC to order "emergency" surgery without requiring mediation dismissed. WCC suggests claimant seek expedited mediation. New filing of emergency petition should be supported by letter from physician addressing urgency of situation, not just need for surgery.