%@LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT" CODEPAGE="1252"%>
Use Back Button to return to Index of Cases
IN
THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1998 MTWCC 65 WCC No. 9701-7682 GUY WALL Petitioner vs. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Respondent/Insurer BARRETTS MINERALS, INCORPORATED Employer. ORDER ON COSTS ¶1 The petitioner/claimant
prevailed in this case and seeks an award of costs in the amount of $846.37.
(745.45 + 100.92 - Sandra Wall deposition charge). Respondent has objected
to the amounts billed by claimant for photocopying, faxes, telephone charges
and postage. A further objection was made to the claim for the telephonic
deposition of Sandra Wall as being untimely.
¶3 Counsel for the claimant provided documentation regarding telephone charges, including the additional charge from AT&T for the telephonic deposition of Sandra Wall. Respondent continues to object asking for the identity of persons to whom a call was made or to whom the mail was sent. I find that the signature of the attorney on the bill of costs is sufficient information to document that all telephone calls and postage relates to the matters in this case. Notification of the cost of the AT&T deposition of Ms. Wall was included in the document setting forth claimant’s justification of costs, filed on March 18, 1998. This deposition was not filed with the Court. ARM 24.5.342 (4)(a) disallows deposition costs if the deposition is not filed with the Court. Although the rule specifically addresses reporter’s fees and transcription costs, I find this charge must also be disallowed. ¶4 Respondent objects to the charges for photocopying of documents and for faxes asserting that the documentation provided by claimant is insufficient. Again I rely on the attorney’s explanation that the photocopies and the Federal Express bill is sufficient to document the charge to this case. ¶5 The final objection
by the respondent is the charges which are claimed for faxing documents.
Because this cost is not included in ARM 24.5.342 the Court requested
information from the respondent regarding the charges it makes to its
clients. Additionally, at the Rules Committee meeting which was held on
September 3, 1998, this question was discussed. The committee members,
which included claimants’ counsel and defense counsel, indicated that
their respective firms did not charge their clients for faxes. Based on
this information I find that fax charges in the amount of $103.50 must
be disallowed. DATED in Helena, Montana, this 14th day of September, 1998. (SEAL)
c: Mr. Richard J. Pyfer |
Use Back Button to return to Index of Cases