 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Home Assurance Co. v. Bry2/27/2004
t periods of time.
d A list of any other accidents or physical problems she has suffered in the last ten years.
It was after this letter that the motion to compel was brought to my attention and I did an in-depth file review.
Discussion
While the petition in this case seeks affirmative relief in the form of an order to compel the cooperation of the claimant, and therefore differs in that sense from the actions in Brennan, Mares, and Behr, the ultimate goal of the insurer is to have the Court determine its liability for benefits even though it has denied the claim and is not paying benefits. Thus, it is the same sort of pre-emptive strike condemned in the cited cases.
As held in Brennan, Mares, and Behr, where the insurer denies liability it cannot compel the claimant to litigate her claim. If the claimant has provided the insurer with insufficient information to support her claim and refuses to cooperate with the insurer's investigation, the insurer is fully justified in denying her claim and standing by its denial. The petition in this case should have therefore been dismissed long ago.
However, this case has been pending for some time and the claimant has filed a response in which she asserts she is entitled to benefits. I can treat that response as a counter-petition seeking adjudication of her claim, but I am reluctant to do so unless that indeed is her intent. She is an involuntary party and has resisted and objected to the discovery sought by the insurer. To date she has not been informed that she is entitled to dismissal of the petition if she does not wish to litigate her claim. Through this Order I am notifying her of that right. She may also choose to have the Court treat her response as submitting her claim to the jurisdiction of the Court for determination of whether she is entitled to workers' compensation benefits.
In considering whether she wishes to pursue a claim for benefits at the present time, the Court must advise the claimant that should she seek and obtain dismissal of the insurer's petition and later on decide to bring her own petition for benefits, such later petition may be barred by the statute of limitations found in section 39-71-2905(2), MCA (2001). That statute provides:
(2) A petition for hearing before the workers' compensation judge must be filed within 2 years after benefits are denied.
She should therefore understand that should she not wish to pursue benefits in connection with the present proceeding, she may never be able to do so.
In the event the claimant decides to pursue benefits in this case, the insurer is entitled to her full cooperation in obtaining information which pertains to her claim. I recently outlined the claimant's obligation to disclose medical information in Thompson v. Montana State Fund, 2004 MTWCC 14. A copy of that decision shall be provided to the claimant.
In Thompson I pointed out that a claimant waives any claim of confidentiality concerning healthcare information which may lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to the claim:
In pursuing his claim for compensation, the claimant waives "any privilege or claim of confidentiality in health care information which is relevant to the subject matter involved in his claim." Bowen v. Super Valu Stores, Inc., 229 Mont. 84, 94, 745 P.2d 330, 337 (1987). Moreover, statutes governing workers' compensation claims and the rules of this Court require the claimant to disclose all medical information relevant to his claim.
Id. at 4. She also waives confidentiality concerning other information, privileged and non-privileged
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|