Settlements: Reopening

Gamble v. Sears, 2007 MT 131, 337 Mont. 354, 160 P.2d 537 A provision which states that a claim may not be reopened even if the parties are mistaken as to the nature or extent of the injured worker’s physical condition is of no consequence. Such a provision is not enforceable because it directly conflicts with Montana law regarding the formation of a contract.

Bond v. Associated Loggers Exchange [06/06/13] 2013 MTWCC 13 Although Petitioner argued that he should be allowed to reopen his settlement because he did not believe the medical treatment he received in the six months following his industrial accident was adequate, the Court concluded that since Petitioner did not settle his claim until a year after his industrial injury, any dissatisfaction he may have had with his initial treatment would have been readily apparent by that time and therefore could not constitute grounds for reopening the settlement.

Flynn v. Montana State Fund [09/29/06] 2006 MTWCC 31 The Court is unpersuaded that claimants who settled their claims after this Court’s initial ruling in Flynn should be allowed to reopen their settlements because the Court cannot presume they settled in reliance on that ruling, which was later overturned. Furthermore, any claimant who did settle in reliance on that ruling was aware of the existence of Flynn and therefore would have been aware the case could be appealed and possibly overturned.
Miller v. State Fund [5/14/01] 2001 MTWCC 21 Arguments for reopening settlement which could have been made in prior proceeding barred by res judicata.