Ford v. Sentry Casualty Company, 2012 MT 156 Since Petitioner’s accident occurred on September 29, 2009, his claim is governed by the 2007 WCA.  With exceptions not applicable here, every statute takes effect on the first day of October following its passage and approval.

EBI/Orion Group v. Blythe, 281 Mont. 50, 931 P.2d 38 (1997) The rule of Buckman v. Montana Deaconess Hosp. (1986) 224 Mont. 318, 730 P.2d 380, only applies to substantive rights of a claimant, such as the right to benefits allowed at the time of injury. The statutes in effect at the time of trial control when the subject is procedural rather than substantive. State Fund v. Sky Country (1989) 239 Mont. 376, 379, 780 P.2d 1135, 1137. A rule as to who is qualified to conduct an IME is a procedural rather than a substantive rule, making the law in effect as to IMES as of the time of trial controlling.

Newlon v. Teck American Inc. (Formerly Cominco) [05/08/14] 2014 MTWCC 12 The Court rejected Petitioner’s argument that his claim should be governed by the version of the WCA in effect in 1978, when Petitioner did not have a workers’ compensation claim in 1978; rather, the insurer had referenced that year in some of its correspondence.  Petitioner cited no authority for the proposition that a claim should be governed by an unsubstantiated date of injury which came about from an apparent clerical error. 

McCoy v. Travelers Casualty & Surety [02/06/14] 2014 MTWCC 3 Since the date of injury controls the disposition of a claim, in rare circumstances, the timing of an industrial injury relative to the effective date of an amendment to applicable statutes may cause different versions of the WCA to apply on a per-statute basis.  In this instance, Petitioner was injured on April 22, 2013, and the 2013 version of § 39-71-402, MCA, was in effect on that date; however, no other 2013 amendments were yet in effect and therefore the 2011 version of the remainder of the WCA applied.

Johnson v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. [08/05/13] 2013 MTWCC 18 Where it is undisputed that the 1999 version of the WCA applies to Petitioner’s claim, amendments, including a retroactivity provision, made to the 2011 version are inapplicable.

Dostal v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [12/04/12] 2012 MTWCC 45 Where the 1991 WCA controls the claim, the UEF cannot read additional requirements into the statute which the legislature added in later years.

Dostal v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [11/05/12] 2012 MTWCC 40 Under § 39-71-737, MCA (1991), the statute included language which excepted impairment awards from the classes of benefits which could not be paid concurrently.  Therefore, in a claim under the 1991 statutes, cases which interpreted an older version of the statute which did not include this exception are not pertinent to the present case and will not preclude Petitioner from receiving an impairment award concurrent with other benefits.