 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. State Compensation Fund2/17/2000
>
Procedural Discussion
Prior to the 1999 revision, a request for 610 benefits triggered an initial administrative order from the Department. The order was issued without benefit of hearing; if either party disagreed with the order the party could request a contested case hearing under Department rules. ARM 24.29.205 and .207(1)(i). After hearing and the issuance of a final Department decision, the matter could be appealed to the Workers' Compensation Court for judicial review. ยง 39-71-2401(3), MCA; ARM 24.29.205(3).
The 1999 revision still provides for a determination by the Department and an "appeal" to the Workers' Compensation Court, however, that language must be construed together and coordinated with the remaining language of the section. "In construing a statute, the statute must be read as a whole and its terms must not be isolated from the context in which the legislature has used them." State v. Thomas, 285 Mont. 112, 122, 946 P.2d 140, 146 (1997). The revision specifically provides for a hearing, not just judicial review, before the Workers' Compensation Court. Thus, even though not artfully drafted, the statute contemplates an initial order issued by an administrative officer of the Department, then, if a party disagrees with the order, a de novo hearing before the Court. While the Department rules still provide for a hearing, the statute supercedes that requirement. Construing the statute as requiring a hearing both before the Department and the Court would be duplicative and contrary to the fundamental rule of statutory construction that statutes are to be construed to avoid absurd results, Clover Leaf Dairy v. State, 285 Mont. 380, 388, 948 P.2d 1164, 1169 (1997).
A "hearing" contemplates a proceeding at which both parties may appear and present the testimony of witnesses. It is usually preceded by discovery. However, in the case of the benefits afforded under section 39-71-610, MCA, there is greater urgency for an expedited decision than in other cases. The benefits are emergency in nature, plainly intended to afford interim funds to a claimant while he or she seeks reinstatement of full benefits through mediation and a petition to this Court. Thus, the nature of the benefits demand a speedy resolution.
Since the 1999 revision of section 39-71-610, MCA, the Court has received, considered, and resolved several requests for benefits under the section. To expedite decisions in those cases, it has proceeded, as in this case, by immediately initiating a telephone conference with counsel for both parties and suggesting that the request be decided based upon information they furnish the Court in the conference. In every case to date, counsel have agreed to this informal procedure and it is the Court's hope that future requests can be handled in similar fashion. For the most part, the facts relevant to the request are not disputed and the procedure allows for an immediate decision and, where appropriate, immediate reinstatement of benefits. Should the parties not agree to telephonic resolution, the Court can and certainly will hold an in personam hearing at which the parties will be permitted to call witnesses whose testimony will be recorded by a court reporter. Such hearings will, however, have to be scheduled with short notice and may require the parties to appear in Helena even though the cases arise in other venues. The important thing is to get the matter submitted and decided quickly. The Court will work with parties and their counsel to assure that this goal is met.
Merits Discussion
Initially, the Court considers the Department's ground for denying claimant's request. The basis for the Department's denial was as
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.
|
|