24.29.1409 ARM


Dostal v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [11/05/12] 2012 MTWCC 41 Petitioner’s challenge to the validity of ARM 24.29.1409 is in line with the cases she cites.  Most pertinently, in another case, the Montana Supreme Court held that a rule which attempted to engraft an additional statutory provision was invalid.  If the legislature had envisioned a time limitation for § 39-71-704, MCA (1991), it would have included it in the statute.  Therefore the version of ARM 24.29.1409 which was in effect at the time of Petitioner’s industrial injury is invalid insofar as it attempts to engraft a time limitation upon § 39-71-704, MCA (1991).

Arneson v. Travelers Property Casualty [02/28/06] 2006 MTWC 7 Petitioner, relying on ARM 24.29.1409(1)(d), argued that in addition to reimbursement for travel expenses at the state rate, Respondent should pay for repairs to Petitioner’s car, including oil changes and a new windshield, which were necessary for his travel. The Court determined that the examples of reimbursable expenses listed in the subpart of the ARM upon which Petitioner relied were dissimilar to the expenses Petitioner desired to claim under its auspices.