Procedure: Reconsideration

Dostal v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [11/05/12] 2012 MTWCC 41 Since ARM 24.5.337 does not provide for a reply brief, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to strike Petitioner’s reply brief to her motion for reconsideration.

Cornelius v. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance [08/07/12] 2012 MTWCC 29 Where Respondent set forth a list of alleged “facts [which] deserve some more attention,” but offered no insight into what it expected the Court to do or how the list of items should cause the Court to reconsider its decision, the Court concluded that Respondent had not set forth grounds entitling it to reconsideration of the Court’s decision.

Morse v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [07/10/12] 2012 MTWCC 24 The Court denied reconsideration where the Court found that it had narrowly construed the issue presented in the Pretrial Order.

Bagley v. Montana State Fund [12/31/09] 2009 MTWCC 41 Where Petitioner attempted to reargue his case in a motion for reconsideration, he presented nothing in his brief to lead the Court to conclude that the Court’s findings were not based on evidenced submitted in the record. Petitioner’s motion was therefore denied.
Benton v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [08/14/08] 2008 MTWCC 40 Petitioner’s explanation that her brief was untimely because her counsel mistakenly calendared the deadline pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 6(a) is well-taken. However, this Order should not be viewed as a de facto modification of the rules that govern this Court’s procedure. Although Petitioner argued that a recent Montana Supreme Court opinion stands for the proposition that the Rules of Civil Procedure take precedence over the administrative rules of procedure, proceedings in the Workers’ Compensation Court are not governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, but by the Montana Administrative Procedure Act.

Woodards v. MIGA [02/06/08] 2008 MTWCC 11 Where the only issues before the Court on a motion to dismiss were whether the claimant was ineligible for PTD benefits and whether the claimant’s TTD benefits were unlawfully converted to PPD benefits, and the claimant never raised the issue of her entitlement to an impairment award until she moved the Court to reconsider its order granting the motion to dismiss, the Court cannot “reconsider” an issue which was not before it in the first place.

Siebken v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Co. [12/18/07] 2007 MTWCC 56 Where a matter was submitted and decided on briefs without a trial, Petitioner’s “Petition for a New Trial” will be considered as motion for reconsideration as a new trial cannot be granted where no trial occurred.
Thompson v. State of Montana, Liberty Northwest Ins. Co. and Montana State Fund [01/11/06] 2006 MTWCC 1 Absent compelling reasons, the Court does not view an oral argument on a motion for reconsideration as an opportunity for testimony of witnesses to present evidence that could have been adduced either with the briefing of the original motion or the motion for reconsideration. The Court can see no compelling reason why additional facts, in the way of testimony, should be introduced when the party contends the only grounds for reconsideration would be an error of law.
Geery v. Travelers [5/1/03] 2003 MTWCC 35 A motion challenging a decision and order of the Court, whether raising new grounds or not, is a motion for reconsideration which must be filed within 20 days of the decision and order. ARM 24.5.337.
Wiard v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [7/20/01] 2001 MTWCC 31A In response to a motion for summary judgment, a party cannot hold back evidence and then seek reconsideration based on evidence and facts not tendered in response to the motion.

ERD/UEF v. Total Mechanical Heating [11/17/00] 2000 MTWCC 70 Motions to reconsider must be filed within 20 days. Rule 24.5.337.

Guedesse v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. [3/29/97] 1997 MTWCC 13 Motion for reconsideration raising factual issues not raised in original motion will be denied.