Jurisdiction: Subject Matter Jurisdiction

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Noonkester v. Montana State Fund, 2006 MT 169, 332 Mont. 528, 140 P.3d 466 The Workers’ Compensation Court’s jurisdiction over a pre-repudiation dispute between a claimant and an insurer does not extend jurisdiction to a post-repudiation dispute between the claimant and his employer.
Noonkester v. Montana State Fund, 2006 MT 169, 332 Mont. 528, 140 P.3d 466 The Workers’ Compensation Court did not act improperly when it raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte and gave the claimant 30 days to consider whether he wished to repudiate or ratify his claim for benefits.
Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation (Brand S Lumber) v. State Fund, 1998 MT 169. When deciding a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a trial court must determine whether the complaint states facts that, if true, would vest the court with subject matter jurisdiction.
Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation (Brand S Lumber) v. State Fund, 1998 MT 169. Supreme Court agreed that WCC did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a claim in tort by Liberty Northwest Insurance Company against State Fund. Liberty alleged State Fund had written a letter to Liberty's insured leading it to believe that a subcontractor was insured for workers' compensation purposes, when in fact the subcontractor was uninsured, causing Liberty to pay workers' compensation benefits to an injured worker of the subcontractor pursuant to section 39-71-405, MCA. Even though the damages sought against State Fund would correspond to the workers' compensation benefits paid by Liberty, the claim was in tort and not a dispute concerning benefits under the WCA, as required for WCC jurisdiction under section 39-71-2905, MCA (1995).
 
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS
Montana Municipal Insurance Authority v. Roche [11/14/07] 2007 MTWCC 47 While Respondent argues that the Court has no authority to order him to repay any TTD benefits he received to which he may not have been entitled, in Reil v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 254 Mont. 274, 837 P.2d 1334 (1992), the Montana Supreme Court concluded that restitution is within the remedies available in this Court, and that the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Act does not preclude restitution of benefits to which a worker was not entitled. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to order restitution in the present case.
Thompson v. State of Montana and Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. and Montana State Fund [04/28/06] 2006 MTWCC 19 Respondent argues that the WCC lacks jurisdiction to determine a constitutional issue because the WCC is a court of limited jurisdiction and specifically lacks jurisdiction to decide tort cases. Respondent, however, mischaracterizes Petitioners’ declaratory judgment action as a “constitutional invasion of privacy tort action.” No tortious conduct has been alleged. An action to declare a statute unconstitutional is a declaratory judgment action – not a tort action. Therefore, Respondent’s argument that the WCC does not have jurisdiction in a tort action, while apparently true, is nonetheless irrelevant.
Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation (Brand S Lumber) v. State Fund [10/1/97] 1997 MTWCC 54 While the jurisdiction of the WCC extends to any matter relating to benefits, including claims between insurers to determine which of them is liable to a claimant, the WCC does not have jurisdiction over tort actions against insurers, even though the measure of tort damages may involve the amount of benefits paid by an insurer under the Workers' Compensation Act. (Note: affirmed in Liberty Northwest Ins. v. State Fund, 1998 MT 169.)
Kimery v. State Compensation Ins. Fund [12/11/95] 1995 MTWCC 104 Where the WCC has jurisdiction to determine entitlement to benefits, it has jurisdiction to determine whether the annulment of widow’s remarriage revives State Fund’s obligation to pay death benefits.