Procedure: Post-Trial Proceedings: Motion for Reconsideration

Lawrence v. UEF [03/08/06] 2006 MTWCC 10 Where Respondent raises no new issues in its motion for reconsideration and the issue upon which its motion to dismiss was denied is clearly controlled by the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Colmore v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 2005 MT 239, 328 Mont. 441, 121 P.3d 1007, Respondent’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
Fleming v. International Paper Co., as successor in interest to Champion Int'l Co., and Liberty Northwest ins. Corp. 2005 MTWCC 57 Although ARM 24.5.337(1) allows for reconsideration of any order or decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court which would include an order denying a motion for reconsideration, the interests of judicial economy and finality mandate that the Court entertain motions for “re-reconsideration” only under compelling circumstances.
Fleming v. International Paper Co., as successor in interest to Champion Int'l Co., and Liberty Northwest ins. Corp. 2005 MTWCC 57 ARM 24.5.337 provides, in pertinent part, that “[u]pon receipt of the response, or the expiration of the time for such response, the motion will be deemed submitted for decision unless the court requests oral argument.” The rule does not allow for the filing of a reply brief in support of a motion for reconsideration and the Court declines to read such a provision into the rule.
Fleming v. International Paper Co., as successor in interest to Champion Int'l Co., and Liberty Northwest ins. Corp. 2005 MTWCC 57 Absent compelling circumstances, new issues may not be raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration.
Hansen v. Liberty NW [06/23/05] 2005 MTWCC 32 Where the evidence tendered in support of a motion for a new trial was available to the party at the time of trial, the request for a new trial is denied.
State Fund v. Murray [6/8/04] 2004 MTWCC 50 Motion for reconsideration will be denied where the findings entered by the Court are supported by the evidence and the law compels the result reached in the decision.
Bauer v. CNA [2/8/02] 2002 MTWCC 2A Upon a motion to reconsider a grant of summary judgment, the Court will not consider issues not raised by the pleadings.
Bauer v. CNA [2/8/02] 2002 MTWCC 2A A party cannot hold back evidence when responding to a motion for summary judgment and then use it in requesting reconsideration of an order granting or denying summary judgment, at least where that evidence was known or should have been known to the party.
Bauer v. CNA [2/8/02] 2002 MTWCC 2A Where an order of the Court is served by mail, 3 days are added to the 20 day period allowed for the filing of a motion for reconsideration. ARM 24.5.337 and 24.5.303.
Hiett v. MSGIA [12/19/01] 2001 MTWCC 66 It is improper for a party to reargue his or her case through a motion for reconsideration. Where the arguments have previously been raised, the proper remedy is an appeal, not a motion to reconsider.
Hiett v. MSGIA [12/19/01] 2001 MTWCC 66 Issues cannot be raised for the first time in a pretrial motion for reconsideration.
McAdam v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh [4/29/98] 1998 MTWCC 34 Where pro se claimant requested rehearing because Court's judgment was "in contradiction of facts this court found," WCC reviewed findings of fact and conclusions of law and found them consistent. The fact that claimant also forwarded an MRI report after the initial motion, which was received after the deadline for moving for a rehearing, does not require a new hearing. Claimant is not, however, precluded from filing a new petition on the basis of the MRI or other alleged new medical information.
Royal Ins. Co. v. Roadarmel and White [7/30/99] 1999 MTWCC 48 [Summary Judgment Grant reversed; 2000 MT 259] Where respondents and cross-movants for summary judgment did not contest statement of facts offered by other party, they cannot do so on motion for reconsideration of ruling. Nor can they reargue the merits of the motion.
W.R. Grace & Co. and Transportation Ins. Co. v. Riley [4/22/98] 1998 MTWCC 32 Motion captioned Motion for Rehearing denied where it was in fact a motion to amend the Court's Declaratory Judgment and was based on factual allegations not made in the proceeding. The factual record was previously closed.

Burglund v. Liberty Mut. NW Ins. Co. [05/01/95] 1995 MTWCC 31 While the Court will not simply reopen a case because claimant alleges subsequent developments post-trial, section 39-71-2909, MCA, grants the Court jurisdiction to consider subsequent changes in a claimant’s disability. Where claimant alleges decline in his condition since trial, including present inability to work and possible inability to return to his time-of-injury job, his remedy is to file a new petition.