PRO SÉ

Bond v. Associated Loggers Exchange [06/06/13] 2013 MTWCC 13 Relying on § 39-71-105(3), MCA, this Court has held that it has a fundamental obligation to preserve basic principles of justice and the rights of the parties where a pro sé claimant is unsophisticated in legal matters.  In this case, where Petitioner wants to reopen his settlement, while Petitioner did not specifically allege that a mutual mistake of fact occurred, the Court will construe his testimony regarding the alleged misidentification of which shoulder was injured in the industrial accident as an argument alleging a mutual mistake of fact.
Auchenbach v. UEF [03/29/06] 2006 MTWCC 13 As a fundamental matter of equity, the Court cannot allow a party to sit on its hands while a time limitation runs on a pro sé petitioner while, at the same time, ignoring its own affirmative statutory duty to act.
Auchenbach v. UEF [03/29/06] 2006 MTWCC 13 The Court found the elements of estoppel by silence and equitable estoppel satisfied where the UEF had a statutory duty to notify the mediation unit of its acceptance or rejection of a mediation recommendation within twenty-five days under § 39-71-520(2), MCA, failed to notify the mediation unit of its acceptance or rejection, let the sixty-day statute of limitation for filing a petition with the Court under § 39-71-2411(6), MCA, run on a pro sé claimant, and moved to dismiss based on the claimant’s failure to file her claim within sixty days of the mailing of the mediator’s recommendation.
Hansen v. Liberty NW [06/23/05] 2005 MTWCC 32 A letter from a party representing himself or herself will be considered based on its substance. Therefore, a letter seeking reconsideration or a new trial will be treated as a motion requesting that relief.
Feather v. UEF [03/28/05] 2005 MTWCC 15 Even though a party represents herself, the Court cannot inject and consider issues which are not within the scope of even the broadest or most liberal construction of the issues framed in the pleadings and Pretrial Order.

Akkerman v. State Fund [03/23/05] 2005 MTWCC 14 A party representing himself or herself must at all times keep the Court and other parties informed of their mailing address so that he or she can be served with documents pertaining to the case. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of his or her petition or other appropriate relief.
Re: Kurth, Harold G. [12/23/03] 2003 MTWCC 71 A party appearing and representing himself or herself must comply with Court rules.
Stewart v. ARCO [3/10/04] 2004 MTWCC 26 The Workers' Compensation Court will initially accept pro sé petitions submitted in the form of a letter and not conforming to its rules governing petitions, however, the petitioner will be required to file a formal petition in compliance with the rules. The Court has provided a fill-in-the-blank form to make that task easier.
State Fund v. Willard E. Vannett [10/29/99] 1999 MTWCC 66 Pro se claimant who was respondent on appeal from decision of DOL hearing officer in OD case did not raise issue of expert doctor's conflict of interest, but Court would consider issue because claimant was unrepresented by counsel and not sophisticated in these sort of legal matters. Recent amendments to the WCA and OD Act are calculated to make benefits more certain and to reduce the reliance of injured workers upon attorneys.
Erickson v. Champion International [3/12/96] 1996 MTWCC 23 Where claimant's argument that insurer failed to reject or deny his claim within 30 days was not raised in the agency proceeding, it will not be considered by the WCC on appeal. Fact that claimant was pro se in the agency does not allow him to raise issues on appeal not raised below. "While pro se litigants may be given a certain amount of latitude in their proceedings, they may not proceed in such a fashion as to abuse the judicial process, prejudicing the opposing party's interests as well as other litigant's access to the judicial system." Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Heidema, 224 Mont. 64, 68, 727 P.2d 1336, 1338 (1986).
Polk v. Planet Insurance Co. [4/26/96] 1996 MTWCC 32 Motion to dismiss denied where appellant’s “Petition for Trial and Other Appropriate Relief” may be treated as appeal from DLI over which the Workers’ Compensation Court does have jurisdiction.
Rathmann v. Bulman [10/20/95] 1995 MTWCC 81 Where claimant has chosen to represent himself and has aggressively pursued his claim in the Department of Labor and the Workers’ Compensation Court, he cannot use his pro se status as a shield and cannot claim error because his former counsel failed to inform him of something he already knew.