§ 39-71-506, MCA

Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [03/20/09] 2009 MTWCC 12 Section 39-71-506, MCA, is not a mere lien statute, but specifically lays out the procedure by which the UEF obtains a judgment against an uninsured employer. The statute’s language does not give this Court authority to enter a judgment against an uninsured employer in favor of the UEF. Rather, the UEF obtains the judgement by first satisfying the due process requirements of § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA, and must bring the dispute before the Department of Labor and Industry for resolution.

Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [02/20/09] 2009 MTWCC 7 UEF’s motion to file a third-party petition against the alleged uninsured employers is denied where the UEF has apparently not followed the statutory procedure set forth in § 39-71-506, MCA.
H&D Investments v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [01/13/09] 2009 MTWCC 1 In order for the UEF to seek reimbursement for benefits paid from an uninsured employer, it must follow the procedure set forth in § 39-71-506, MCA, including the due process requirements of § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA, which that statute requires. While the UEF argues that Petitioner may only be entitled to partial summary judgment because the UEF wishes to pursue recovery against another alleged uninsured employer which has been named as a Respondent in this case, the Court concludes the only issue properly before it involves Petitioner and the UEF.
Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [12/11/08] 2008 MTWCC 52 Section 39-71-506, MCA, provides that the only way the UEF can seek reimbursement from an alleged uninsured employer is by first satisfying the due process requirements of § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA. This requires that the dispute between the UEF and the alleged uninsured employer be brought before the department, after which the department’s order may be appealed to this Court. The UEF cannot bypass the departmental procedure for the sake of judicial economy, and this Court cannot create or enforce a process which, while more judicially economical, contravenes a statute which binds this Court.
Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [12/11/08] 2008 MTWCC 52 A prospective demand letter sent to an uninsured employer by a UEF claims adjuster does not satisfy the due process requirements of § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA, and therefore does not comport with the requirements of § 39-71-506, MCA. Alleged uninsured employers are entitled to due process as specifically mandated by § 39-71-506, MCA, including the departmental procedure described in § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA.
Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [09/19/08] 2008 MTWCC 45 An uninsured employer who was joined as a party via ARM 24.5.307A is properly dismissed where the UEF has not followed the procedure to seek reimbursement set forth in § 39-71-506, MCA.
Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [09/19/08] 2008 MTWCC 45 Until a departmental order is issued pursuant to § 39-71-2401(2), MCA, and appealed to this Court pursuant to § 39-71-2401(3), MCA, the due process requirements of § 39-71-506, MCA, have not been met as it pertains to a claim for reimbursement made by the UEF against an uninsured employer.

Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [09/19/08] 2008 MTWCC 45 Section 39-71-506, MCA, sets forth the procedure by which the UEF would assert a claim for reimbursement against an uninsured employer. This statute mandates that the due process requirements of § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA, must first be met. Section 39-71-2401(2), MCA, requires the dispute to be brought before the Department of Labor and Industry, and § 39-71-2401(3), MCA, provides that an appeal from the departmental decision may be made to this Court.