Claims: Notice to Employer: Supervisor

Morse v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [05/03/12] 2012 MTWCC 16 Where Petitioner testified that he notified both his supervisor and the safety officer trainee about one industrial accident, and the trainee about a second industrial accident, and the trainee testified that he clearly recalled Petitioner reporting both industrial accidents to him, the Court concluded that Petitioner complied with the notice requirements of § 39-71-603, MCA.

Fournier v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Auth. [10/23/09] 2009 MTWCC 34 Where the Petitioner worked as a paraprofessional in a middle school and reported her accident to a teacher that was not working with her at the time of the injury, did not prepare the Petitioner’s daily schedule nor assign her any tasks or duties, and did not have the authority to either discipline or evaluate the petitioner as an employee, the Court held that the teacher was not working in a supervisory capacity and therefore, the Petitioner failed to properly report her injury within thirty days as required by § 39-71-603, MCA.

Alsbury v. State Fund [2/9/01] 2001 MTWCC 8 A more experienced carpenter, who provides advice and instruction to another carpenter in response to questions arising during work assigned and overseen on a daily basis by the construction company's owner, and who was off work on the day of the claimant's injury and the week thereafter, was not claimant's supervisor. Claimant's report of his injury to him did not constitute notice to the employer under section 39-71-603, MCA.
LaPlante v. Town Pump, Incorporated [1/26/99] 1999 MTWCC 8 WCC credited Town Pump supervisors who testified claimant, a merchandise stocker, did not report a work injury to them and that they had no knowledge of the alleged injury until well past the 30 day reporting period under section 39-71-603, MCA (1989). The Court did not credit a co-employee who claimed she had been a supervisor and was told of the accident. The credible evidence indicated the co-employee may have had lead cashier duties, but had no supervisory responsibility for claimant, who was a merchandise stocker. Notice to a co-employee is insufficient; notice must be given to the employer or the employer's managing agent or supervisor in charge of the employee's work, or one of them must have knowledge of the accident.
Kuzara v. State Fund/Curtis Bartell [2/2/98] 1998 MTWCC 5 Following reversal and remand by the Montana Supreme Court, hearing was held before the Hon. Russell C. Fagg on whether State Compensation Insurance Fund could rebut claimant's evidence that she gave notice to her employer of a back injury. The Court rejected the testimony of respondent's witnesses, finding that claimant did in fact give notice.
Good v. State Fund 1997 [7/16/97] MTWCC 44 Lead welder's claim for back injury denied where WCC found he did not report the injury within 30 days. Employer had clear practice regarding reporting of injuries which claimant had previously followed. Employees to whom claimant should have reported injury credibly testified they did not receive notice. While claimant's wife testified she told employer's secretary claimant hurt his back at work, the secretary credibly denied receiving that information. Moreover, this is not a case in which a co-employee may be deemed an employer's supervisor or agent under a doctrine of ostensible authority. Ostensible agency is established "when the principal intentionally or by want of ordinary care causes a third person to believe another to be an agent." Larson v. Barry Smith Logging, Inc., 267 Mont. 444, 447, 884 P.2d 786, 788 (1994). Here, claimant acknowledged that the secretary was not one of the people to whom he could report an injury.