Chaney v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty, 276 Mont. 513, 917 P.2d 912 (1996) Where Workers’ Compensation Court found that insurer’s failure to accept or deny a claim within thirty days constituted acceptance as a matter of law (see § 39-71-606(1), MCA, and Haag v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Auth., 274 Mont. 109 (1995)), the Court erred in failing to hold the insurer liable for claimant’s present condition. Once a claimant shows acceptance of a claim as a matter of law under Haag, and that his original injury was the same kind of injury to the same parts of his body for which he now seeks benefits, he has met his initial burden of proof. To avoid liability, the insurer must then show that claimant attained maximum medical healing and suffered another injury causing his present condition, not shown in this case.

Clapham v. Twin City [08/01/12] 2012 MTWCC 27 Section 39-71-606(5), MCA, which specifically limits the remedies available for noncompliance with the statute to attorney fees and a penalty, likewise applies to claims placed under § 39-71-608, MCA.  It would be absurd to hold an insurer who invokes § 39-71-608, MCA, potentially liable for automatic acceptance of the claim while an insurer who simply denies the claim would not face the possibility of this action.

[1985] LaPlant v. State Fund [11/24/99] 1999 MTWCC 75 Where State Fund failed to accept or deny a 1987 claim within thirty days, under section 39-71-606, MCA (1985), and Haag v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Authority, 274 Mont. 109, 906 P.2d 693 (1995), it is in the same position as though it had accepted the claim. State Fund is not, however, liable for a wide range of medical bills without proof of a causal relationship to the claimed elbow injury, nor for compensation benefits during all periods of unemployment without proof of disability and causal relationship of disability to the "accepted" claim.