Jurisdiction: Ripeness

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Bare v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 1998 MT 106 Supreme Court affirmed WCC conclusion that WCC lacked jurisdiction to determine claimant's disability status under the 1989 WCA where claimant had failed to exhaust the rehabilitation panel procedures under sections 39-71-1012 through 39-71-1033, MCA (1989). The WCC had determined that the Department of Labor had original jurisdiction to assess return-to-work options for claimant. If the DOL made a final decision, the WCC had appellate jurisdiction on challenge of that decision; it had original jurisdiction only when the DOL determined that none of the statutory return-to-work options were appropriate. In agreeing, the Supreme Court concluded that the statutory rehabilitation panel procedures were "dispute resolution requirements" under section 39-71-2905, MCA (1989), meaning the WCC had jurisdiction over the dispute only after those requirements were satisfied.
 
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS
Quigg v. Montana State Fund [01/13/05] WCC No. 2004-1119 Where the claimant is incarcerated in prison pursuant to a life sentence and may never be released, his entitlement to benefits which might be due if released is speculative and not ripe for adjudication. Courts adjudicate only actual, present controversies.
Bare v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. [5/27/97] WCC No. 9704-7739 Where claimant's petition shows that he seeks permanent total disability benefits under the 1989 WCA, but he has not exhausted the rehabilitation procedures under section 39-71-1012 through -1003, MCA (1989), his petition must be dismissed. (Note: Affirmed at Michael Bare v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 1998 MT 106, No. 97-434.)

Champion International Corp. v. Brennan [06/13/95] 1995 MTWCC 46 The Workers’ Compensation Court does not permit insurers or self-insured employers to use principles of declaratory judgment to determine the timing of litigation of a worker’s potential entitlement to benefits under the Workers’ Compensation or Occupational Disease Acts. Where adjudication may never be necessary concerning entitlement to benefits, the insurer cannot use a pre-emptive strike to force claimant to settle or litigate just so it can close its files.

Champion Int'l Corp. v. Bernhard [06/13/95] 1995 MTWCC 45 Where adjudication may never be necessary concerning entitlement to benefits, the insurer cannot use a pre-emptive strike to force claimant to settle or litigate just so it can close its files.