Weidow v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2010 MT 292 Where the claimant pursued his claim in good faith, including timely notifying his employer of his injury and filing a claim with the UEF, the Montana Supreme Court determined that the ambiguity inherent in § 39-71-520(2), MCA, justified application of the doctrine of equitable tolling.  The court noted that the statute fails to define which “determination” it renders final and it fails to define “the department.”  The court held that where the claimant accepted the mediator’s determination, he reasonably believed the statute would render final the mediator’s recommendation unless the UEF appealed with 60 days.  He justifiably did not understand that the statute might be read to render the denial final.

Weidow v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2010 MT 292 This Court erred in concluding that it lacks the jurisdiction to toll the procedural time bar in § 39-71-520(2), MCA.  The cases upon which the Court relied were overruled by implication in Davis v. State, 2008 MT 226, 344 Mont. 300, 187 P.3d 654.  Equitable principles can apply to toll procedural filing deadlines during the administrative processing of claims.

[1999] Colmore, et al. v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2005 MT 239 Where claimant failed to notice UEF’s error in calculating benefit rate, and did not appeal that error within 90 days from the UEF’s determination of benefits pursuant to section 39-71-520, MCA (1999), the error could not be corrected where the interests of the uninsured employer, who is liable to the UEF for reimbursement of benefits paid, are also at issue. See also Hand v. UEF, 2004 MT 336.

Car Werks, LLC v. Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Gawronski [06/12/15] 2015 MTWCC 13 The uninsured employer’s pleadings and exhibits establish that it timely “appealed” to mediation the UEF’s determination to accept liability, and, when there was no settlement at mediation, timely petitioned this Court to resolve the dispute.  While claimant maintains that the uninsured employer’s documents and pleadings are not sufficiently precise to qualify as a mediation petition or a petition with this Court, the claimant is elevating form over substance.

Emanuel v. Montana State Fund [04/27/15] 2015 MTWCC 6 State Fund’s reliance on the 90-day statute of limitations in § 39-71-520(1), MCA, is misplaced, as that statute applies only to disputes concerning uninsured employers’ fund benefits.  Here, Petitioner chose to pursue benefits from State Fund under § 39-71-405, MCA, and the two year statute of limitations in § 39-71-2905(2), MCA, applies.

Wommack v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co., et al. [04/14/15] 2015 MTWCC 5 While § 39-72-303(1), MCA, is written in terms of “employer” liability, it is the employer’s insurer that is actually liable for the payment of benefits.  Since Petitioner was never injuriously exposed to asbestos when CHS was at risk as a self-insured employer, CHS is not liable for Petitioner’s asbestos-related disease as a matter of law.

Cleek v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [08/08/12] 2012 MTWCC 31 Where a claim is denied, mediation of that denial encompasses all subjacent compensation issues whether or not they are specifically mentioned in the request for mediation.  For the UEF to maintain that its right to reimbursement is unassailable and its denial of liability uncontestable because Petitioner did not re-mediate his claim every time the UEF made a new determination, strains credulity.  The initial petition, timely mediated and timely filed, seeks a determination as to whether Petitioner’s claim is compensable and whether the UEF is liable for payment of his benefits. These issues are in dispute and properly before this Court.

Cleek v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [08/08/12] 2012 MTWCC 31 Insofar as the UEF contends that Petitioner must repeatedly request mediation then petition this Court every time the UEF makes a “determination” on Petitioner’s claim, here there is one claim for benefits, one date of injury, and one issue regarding compensability of the claim which was being paid on a disputed liability basis.  There is no dispute that Petitioner timely filed for mediation then timely petitioned this Court.  Montana is a notice-pleading state; all subsequent and subjacent issues are a consequence of that initial dispute, i.e.: denial of the claim, termination of benefits, and demand for repayment.  All relate to the compensability of Petitioner’s claim, and all relate back to the original petition before this Court.  Therefore, the parties have already complied with the requirements of mediation on these issues.

Weidow v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [12/31/08] 2008 MTWCC 56 Section 39-71-520, MCA, cannot clearly be interpreted to mean that it is the mediator’s report which becomes final if settlement is not reached and a petition is not filed within 60 days of the mailing of the mediator’s report. It can also reasonably be interpreted to mean that the UEF’s determination becomes final if a petition is not filed within 60 days.

[2001] Flynn v. UEF and Casterline [9/24/04] 2004 MTWCC 67 Under the express terms of section 39-71-520, MCA (1993-2003), a claim for benefits from the UEF is barred unless the claimant requests mediation within ninety days of the UEF's determination denying benefits. The ninety-day period begins running on the date of the denial, not on the date the claimant receives the denial. The ninety-day period is not extended by the fact that the denial was mailed.