Use Back Button to return to Index of Cases
IN THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1997 MTWCC 46
PLUM CREEK MANUFACTURING
Summary: The insurer refused to advance claimant $10,000 on permanent partial disability benefits. The insurer argued claimant failed to provide justification for the advance, contending this was required during mediation and, more generally, as justification for her request.
Held: Where the insurer did not demand specification for the request during the mediation process, the Workers' Compensation Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint about lack of specificity during mediation. While section 39-71-2401(4)(a), MCA (1993) references providing a specific demand prior to mediation, the remedy for that failure is provided in the mediation statute and requires decision by the mediator. Contrary to the insurer's argument, there is no statutory requirement that claimant provide justification to the insurer for a lump sum request for permanent partial disability benefits. The only criteria mentioned in section 39-71-741(2), MCA (1993) regarding approval is whether a settlement amount is inadequate. The insurer's request for dismissal is rejected; the WCC will review claimant's request for advance with regard to whether the amount is adequate.
The petitioner (claimant) in this matter seeks a $10,000 partial lump-sum advance of the permanent partial disability benefits due her. A review of the voluminous filings in this case shows that the amount of the benefits due her are not in dispute, rather the respondent (insurer) resists any partial lump summing and requests that the matter be dismissed on account of claimant's failure to provide it with a detailed justification for her lump-sum request. (Defendant's Motion for Summary Ruling and Reply Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Ruling.)
The insurer argues that even though the parties mediated the claimant's lump-sum request the petitioner nonetheless failed to comply with mediation requirements since she has never provided respondent with a detailed justification for her lump-sum request. It relies on section 39-71-2401(4)(a), MCA (1993), which provides that prior to mediation,
The insurer's argument is without merit. Initially, any objection to the sufficiency of the claimant's demand should have been presented in the first instance to the mediator. Section 39-71-2401(4)(c), MCA (1993), provides:
This Court does not have before it any dismissal by the mediator or any order of the mediator denying a request to dismiss. Thus, it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the insurer's challenge to the sufficiency of the demand.
Moreover, claimant is not required to provide a detailed justification for her lump- sum request. She was injured in 1993. Section 39-71-741(2), MCA (1993), governs her request. It provides:
The section expressly provides for a partial lump-sum advance. Unlike the provision set out in subsection (3) of section 39-71-741, MCA, which pertains to lump summing of permanent total disability benefits, it does not require the claimant to justify her request.(1) In inserting specific justification requirements with respect to lump summing of permanent total disability benefits, and omitting any similar requirements with respect to lump summing of permanent partial disability benefits, the legislature has indicated that no justification is required. "It is a rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one matter excludes other similar matters not mentioned." Helena Valley Irrigation District v. State Highway Commission, 150 Mont. 192, 198, 433 P.2d 791 (1967).
The only ground for disapproving a partial lump summing of permanent partial disability benefits is where "the department determines that the settlement amount is inadequate." § 39-71-741(2)(c), MCA (1993). Claimant's lump-sum request has evaded Department review on account of the insurer's failure to agree to her request, however, the Court must apply the same standard. Thus, the only issue presented is whether the requested amount is inadequate.
The insurer's motion requesting dismissal of the petition is denied. This matter shall be tried in Kalispell during the week of September 15, 1997. The only issues to be tried are whether the $10,000 requested by claimant is inadequate and whether she is entitled to attorney fees and a penalty.
DATED in Helena, Montana, this 13th day of August, 1997.
c: Mr. J. David Slovak
1. Section 39-71-741(3), MCA (1993), provides:
Permanent total disability benefits may be converted in whole or in part to a lump sum. The total of all lump-sum conversions in part that are awarded to a claimant may not exceed $20,000. A conversion may be made only upon the written application of the injured worker with the concurrence of the insurer. Approval of the lump-sum payment rests in the discretion of the department. The approval or award of a lump-sum payment by the department or court must be the exception. It may be given only if the worker has demonstrated financial need that:
Use Back Button to return to Index of Cases