Administrative Procedure: Contested Case Hearing: DLI Jurisdiction

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Auto Parts of Bozeman v. Employment Relations Division, Uninsured Employer's Fund, 2001 MT 72. Supreme Court decision. Hearing officer correctly determined DLI did not have jurisdiction to inquire into contractual dispute between allegedly uninsured employer and State Compensation Insurance Fund over whether policy was in effect; thus allegedly uninsured employer could not defend against assessment of penalty by UEF on ground that it had in fact been insured. Action in district court necessary to challenge insurer's determination that policy not in effect. WCC reversed.
 
MONTANA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS
Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [09/19/08] 2008 MTWCC 45 Until a departmental order is issued pursuant to § 39-71-2401(2), MCA, and appealed to this Court pursuant to § 39-71-2401(3), MCA, the due process requirements of § 39-71-506, MCA, have not been met as it pertains to a claim for reimbursement made by the UEF against an uninsured employer.
Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [09/19/08] 2008 MTWCC 45 Section 39-71-506, MCA, sets forth the procedure by which the UEF would assert a claim for reimbursement against an uninsured employer. This statute mandates that the due process requirements of § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA, must first be met. Section 39-71-2401(2), MCA, requires the dispute to be brought before the Department of Labor and Industry, and § 39-71-2401(3), MCA, provides that an appeal from the departmental decision may be made to this Court.
Gomez v. MMIA [01/27/95] 1995 MTWCC 6 Where the insurer has accepted liability, but disputes arise as to amount and nature of benefits, the procedures of sections 39-72-602 and -611, MCA (1991), leading to a Department of Labor and Industry order and hearing, are not applicable. In those situations, sections 39-71-2401 and -2411, provide the Workers’ Compensation Court with original jurisdiction over disputes over benefits under the Occupational Disease Act following mediation. However, because the 1991 version of section 39-72-405, MCA authorized “the department” to allow compensation of up to $10,000 under that statute, and Carmichael v. Workers’ Compensation Court, 234 Mont. 410 (1988) does not allow this Court to apply new statutory provisions to claimant’s request under section 405, that dispute must first be heard in the Department of Labor.