McCoy v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. [04/07/14] 2014 MTWCC 3A With no objection from the parties, and after granting the Department’s motion to intervene, the Court amended its decision to remove language in which this Court ruled on the applicability of the 2007 Montana-North Dakota Reciprocal Agreement. Since the parties had stipulated that the Agreement did not apply, the Court agreed with the Department’s representations that the Court’s statements about the Agreement were dicta and had created confusion in other cases. |
Cornelius v. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance [08/07/12] 2012 MTWCC 29 Where the only mention of Respondent’s request for amendment is in the caption of its petition, Respondent has not adequately set forth specifically and in full detail the relief requested by its motion to amend and its motion is therefore denied. |
Morse v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [07/10/12] 2012 MTWCC 24 The Court denied reconsideration where the Court found that it had narrowly construed the issue presented in the Pretrial Order. |
Grande v. Montana State Fund [07/22/11] 2011 MTWCC 21 Where the Court’s decision addressed only the generally-drafted disputed issues, it denied Petitioner’s request to amend its decision to reflect that Petitioner was entitled to medical benefits for the treatment of his rheumatoid arthritis during a certain time period. Petitioner never raised the specific issue of whether his job duties aggravated his rheumatoid arthritis nor did he prove that his work was the major contributing cause of the condition. |
Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [06/25/10] 2010 MTWCC 9A Where the UEF failed to list its claim for indemnification in the disputed issues section of the final pretrial order, but listed the indemnification issue in its contentions, the employer had no basis to claim surprise and the Court may consider the indemnification issue. |
Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [05/24/10] 2010 MTWCC 12 In accordance with ARM 24.5.344(1), the Court issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment setting forth the Court’s determination of the disputed issues. Contrary to the UEF’s motion, the Court’s omission of whether the employer is obligated to indemnify the UEF was not a “clerical mistake.” The Court did not determine this issue because it was not presented as an issue for the Court’s determination. It was not the Court’s prerogative to sua sponte resolve an issue that was not presented for resolution in the final pretrial order. |
Roche
v. MMIA [12/26/07] 2007 MTWCC 59 Constitutions, Statutes,
Regulations, and Rules: Administrative Rules of Montana: 24.5.344. The
grounds for granting a new trial under ARM 24.5.344 are as enumerated
in § 25-11-102, MCA. Where none of the factors are present, a new
trial will not be granted. |
Siebken
v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Co. [12/18/07] 2007 MTWCC 56
Where a matter was submitted and decided on briefs without a trial,
Petitioner’s “Petition for a New Trial” will be considered
as motion for reconsideration as a new trial cannot be granted where
no trial occurred. |
Industrial
Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Ryan [02/08/95] 1995 MTWCC 12
Where claimant filed her motion for a new trial more than twenty days
after the Court’s judgment, her motion is denied. ARM 24.5.344
provides that any party may petition for a new trial or amendment to
the court’s findings and conclusions within twenty days after
the order or judgment is served. |
| Thayer v. UEF [01/27/95] 1995 MTWCC 7 Under ARM 24.5.344, any party may “petition for a new trial or request amendment to the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law within 20 days after the order or judgment is served.” The grounds for granting a new trial are enumerated in section 25-11-102, MCA, and include irregularity in the earlier proceeding preventing a fair trial and accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. Smith’s claim of surprise by admission of evidence concerning the scope of control he exercised over a worker was unconvincing. The individuals involved were all listed as witnesses. Evidence of scope of control was relevant to employment status and contemplated by the issues stated in the pretrial order. |