MONTANA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS |
Carlock v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. [10/21/15] 2015 MTWCC 19 A motion for summary judgment, supported only by the claimant’s answer to an interrogatory that he had a “significant asbestos exposure” while employed with the City of Libby, does not prove that he has an OD or that his alleged OD was caused by his City of Libby employment. Medical causation requires expert opinion or testimony; the movant presented no evidence of the criteria claimant used to form his opinion that his asbestos exposure was “significant,” or that he has sufficient knowledge and expertise to say that the conditions under which he worked for the City of Libby could have caused his alleged OD. |
Cole v. Montana State Fund [03/18/15] 2015 MTWCC 4 Summary judgment is improper where Petitioner’s credibility is crucial to decisions of material fact, particularly when inconsistent statements in medical records attributed to her create issues of material fact as to whether she injured her shoulder at work. |
Jensen v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [02/07/13] 2013 MTWCC 3 The Court denied third-party respondent’s motion for leave to re-file its motion for summary judgment. Since the parties agreed to submit this matter upon briefs and agreed facts, the Court concluded that following one briefing schedule with another, would be redundant and a waste of time and resources for both the parties and the Court. |
Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, In Re Kuran [08/28/12] 2012 MTWCC 32 Where the cause of claimant’s neck condition remains in dispute between two insurers, the Court concluded the matter was not susceptible to summary disposition since an issue of material fact exists. Respondent’s motion is denied. |
Malcomson v. Liberty Northwest [04/22/11] 2011 MTWCC 11 The Court granted Respondent’s motion for reconsideration where it found that it failed to grant Respondent’s timely request for a hearing on Petitioner’s summary judgment motion. ARM 24.5.329(5) expressly provides that a timely request for a hearing on a summary judgment motion will be granted; Respondent is entitled to a hearing. |
Wilson v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [03/08/10] 2010 MTWCC 5 In considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court is not limited to considering only those facts which occurred after the filing of the petition. |
Emmons v. MHA Workers Compensation Reciprocal [03/09/09] 2009 MTWCC 10 Where a claimant fails to comply with the rule requiring a statement of uncontroverted facts as described in ARM 24.5.329(3), her motion for summary judgment will not be considered. |
Hilbig v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [02/20/09] 2009 MTWCC 6 The Court may refuse to consider a motion for summary judgment when Petitioner does not comply with the briefing requirements of ARM 24.5.329, or may order Petitioner to correct the deficiencies of the brief. |
Benton v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [08/14/08] 2008 MTWCC 41 The Court has wide discretion to order discovery in certain circumstances pursuant to ARM 24.5.329. Where a party has made a blanket request of this Court to stay its ruling on a motion for summary judgment without proposing the discovery she seeks and establishing how the proposed discovery could preclude summary judgment, a request for a stay of the summary judgment ruling is not well-taken. |
Benton v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [08/14/08] 2008 MTWCC 41 ARM 24.5.329(3) is designed to facilitate the Court’s resolution of a motion for summary judgment by clearly identifying the issues in dispute and setting forth the material facts which would preclude summary judgment. Although Petitioner has not complied with this rule, she has submitted her own affidavit accompanying her response to Rogue’s motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. Much of Petitioner’s affidavit is a series of conclusory statements. Nevertheless, as this motion pertains to the first issue (whether Meyer d/b/a Rogue Transportation or Rodriguez were Petitioner’s “employer” within the meaning of § 39-71-117(4)), it is clear from Petitioner’s brief and accompanying affidavit that the basis for Petitioner’s opposition to this motion is her contention that Rogue maintained a “place of business” wherever Rogue’s truck was located. |
Liberty Northwest v. Montana State Fund In Re: Mitchell [02/01/08] 2008 MTWCC 10 Not only are summary judgment motions typically disfavored by this Court, but ARM 24.5.329(1)(b), specifically provides that where the Court concludes the issues may be resolved as expeditiously at trial, it may decline to consider motions for summary judgment. Where no less than seventeen substantive briefs have been filed in multiple motions for summary judgment, the Court is at a loss to think of a better application of this rule. |
Satterlee v. Lumberman's Mutual [07/12/06] 2006 MTWCC 29 A party may be granted leave under Rule 56(f), Mont. R. Civ. P., which is identical to ARM 24.5.329, consistent with the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling in Environmental Contractors, LLC v. Moon, 1999 MT 178, 295 Mont. 268, 983 P.2d 390, to state specifically: (1) the discovery they are seeking; and (2) how the proposed discovery could preclude summary judgment in favor of the other party. |
Satterlee
v. Lumberman's Mutual [07/12/06] 2006 MTWCC 29
The Court has wide discretion to order discovery in certain circumstances
pursuant to ARM 24.5.329(8), which is identical to Rule 56(f), Mont.
R. Civ. P. |
Burke
v. Montana State Fund [01/05/05] 2005 MTWCC 1 Motion
for summary judgment denied for failure to comply with Rule 24.5.329(3),
which requires any motion for summary judgment to set forth facts serially
and with citation to evidence. The requirements reduce the time necessary
to resolve a motion for summary judgment and reduces the possibility
that the Court will miss essential facts. |
Smith
v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. [10/31/02] 2002 MTWCC 54 Where
a deposition necessary to consideration of summary judgment motion is
to be taken less than a week before the scheduled trial, it is just
as expeditious for the Court to proceed with the trial. Therefore, the
motion will be denied without prejudice. ARM 24.5.329(1)(b). |
Smith
v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. [10/31/02] 2002 MTWCC 54 Even
though the opposing party does not support its medical contentions with
affidavits or other sworn evidence raising a material issue of fact,
where summary judgment motion raises medical issues and medical testimony
which might raise an issue of fact is scheduled to take place only days
after a motion for summary judgment is submitted for decision, the Court
will defer ruling on motion for summary judgment and consider the medical
testimony in determining whether a genuine issue of fact is raised.
See ARM 24.5.329(8). This approach is in recognition of the
expedited pretrial schedule in workers' compensation proceedings and
the difficulty in scheduling doctors' testimony. |
Kemp
v. Montana Contractor Compensation Fund [6/4/98] 1998 MTWCC 45
Motion for summary judgment denied for failure to comply with ARM 24.5.329(3)
regarding presentation of alleged undisputed facts. |
Pittsley
v. State Fund [6/4/98] 1998 MTWCC 44Motion for summary judgment
denied for failure to comply with ARM 24.5.329(3) regarding presentation
of alleged undisputed facts. The requirements to set forth facts serially
and with reference to specific evidence reduces the time necessary to
resolve a motion for summary judgment and avoids the possibility that
the court would miss essential facts. |
| Sandoval v. UEF and Donald W. Jacklin [5/6/99] 1999 MTWCC 33 Conclusory or speculative statements such as an "understanding" do not contradict facts stated in affidavits or sworn testimony such as to warrant denial of a motion for summary judgment. |
| Galetti
v. Montana Power Company [10/19/98] 1998 MTWCC 75 Where petitioner
filed a motion for summary judgment using a factual narrative, and has
attached numerous documents without specifying the source of the document's
authenticity, the motion is denied for failure to comply with Court
rules. ARM 24.5.329 requires that facts supporting a motion for summary
judgment be set forth in serial fashion, not in narrative form, and
that the motion include reference to a specific pleadings, affidavit,
or other document where the fact may be found. This rule exists for
a purpose. It enables the opposing party to identify each specific fact
it disputes and allows the Court to quickly determine facts without
sorting through long factual narratives. Future motions with this defect
will be summarily denied. |
Smith
v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. [10/15/96] WCC No. 9307-6858
Neither party complied with ARM 24.5.329(3), which requires a brief
in support of or opposition to a motion for summary judgment to include
a statement of uncontroverted facts, in serial (not narrative) form,
referencing specific pleadings, affidavits or other documents that support
each specific fact. If this motion required the Court to conclude that
certain facts were established, it would be denied based on failure
to comply with ARM 24.5.329(3). |