Limitation Period : Occupational Disease

Shelly v. American Home Assurance Co. [12/06/07] 2007 MTWCC 52 Where Petitioner argued that under Corcoran v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Authority, 2000 MTWCC 30, the one year statute of limitation period was not triggered until he required treatment, the Court held that § 39-71-601, MCA, does not require the presence of symptoms to commence the statute of limitations. Petitioner’s complaint filed in district court in 2001 alleging that he suffered from an asbestos-related condition as a result of his employment with Respondent’s insured triggered the statute of limitations because this establishes that Petitioner knew he suffered from an occupational disease as of that date.
Re: Annetta Laundry [08/12/05] 2005 MTWCC 49 Section 39-72-403, MCA (1999), required a claimant to file a claim for an occupational disease “within 1 year from the date the claimant knew or should have known that the claimant's condition resulted from an occupational disease.” Under the plain language of the provision, the limitations period begins running only when the claimant is not only aware of her condition but is aware that the condition resulted from her work. The fact that the claimant received care for her condition more than one year prior to the filing of her claim does not start the running of the limitations period unless more than one year prior to filing the claim she was also aware that her condition was work related.

Mack v. Montana State Fund [08/12/05] 2005 MTWCC 48 The one-year limitations period in section 39-72-403, MCA (1995-2003), does not begin to run until the claimant recognizes he suffers from a specific and permanent medical condition requiring medical treatment. Taking over-the-counter medications which provide symptomatic relief of symptoms does not constitute medical treatment and the claimant’s association of symptoms which are relieved by over-the-counter medications to his work does not constitute knowledge that he is suffering from an occupational disease.