Appeals (to Supreme Court): Standard of Review

Gamble v. Sears, 2007 MT 131, 337 Mont. 354, 160 P.2d 537 The “substantial credible evidence” standard of review is further defined by rules regarding the Montana Supreme Court’s consideration of witness testimony. As for witnesses who testify in person at trial, the court defers to the WCC’s findings concerning credibility and the weight to be accorded to this testimony. However, since the court is in as good a position as the WCC to assess testimony presented at trial by way of deposition, the court conducts de novo review of deposition testimony. Even where de novo review of deposition testimony occurs, however, the court is still restricted to determining whether substantial credible evidence supports the WCC’s findings.

Gamble v. Sears, 2007 MT 131, 337 Mont. 354, 160 P.2d 537 When reviewing the WCC’s findings of fact, the court does not resolve conflicts in evidence and does not consider whether evidence supports findings that are different than those made by the WCC. Review is confined to determining whether substantial credible evidence supports the findings made by the WCC.

Gamble v. Sears, 2007 MT 131, 337 Mont. 354, 160 P.2d 537 As for the WCC’s findings of fact, the Montana Supreme Court’s review is both deferential and limited in scope. Factual findings are reviewed to determine whether they are supportable by substantial credible evidence.

Gamble v. Sears, 2007 MT 131, 337 Mont. 354, 160 P.2d 537 The court conducts de novo review of the WCC’s conclusions of law to determine whether they are correct.

Wise v. CNA America, 2006 MT 194, 333 Mont. 181, 142 P.3d 774 The Montana Supreme Court reviews a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Mont. R. Civ. P., de novo. Hall v. State, 2006 MT 37, ¶ 10, 331 Mont. 171, 130 P.3d 601.

Noonkester v. Montana State Fund, 2006 MT 169, 332 Mont. 528, 140 P.3d 466 The Montana Supreme Court reviews discretionary rulings by the Workers’ Compensation Court for abuse of discretion – that is, whether the court acted arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. State v. Ferguson, 2005 MT 343, ¶ 22, 330 Mont. 103, 126 P.3d 463.

Noonkester v. Montana State Fund, 2006 MT 169, 332 Mont. 528, 140 P.3d 466 The Montana Supreme Court undertakes plenary review of the Workers’ Compensation Court’s conclusions of law to determine if they are correct. Ruhd v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 2004 MT 236, ¶ 13, 322 Mont. 478, 97 P.3d 561.

Montana State Fund v. Murray, 2005 MT 97 (No. 04-576) The question underlying whether a finding is supported by substantial evidence is not whether substantial evidence would support a different finding. The question is whether substantial evidence supports the finding the Workers’ Compensation Court actually made.