Komeotis v. Williamson Fencing

CourtMontana Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtGULBRANDSON; TURNAGE
CitationKomeotis v. Williamson Fencing, 736 P.2d 93, 225 Mont. 356, 44 St.Rep. 298 (Mont. 1987)
Decision Date18 February 1987
Docket NumberNo. 85-584,85-584
PartiesKenneth K. KOMEOTIS, Claimant and Appellant, v. WILLIAMSON FENCING, Employer, and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendant and Respondent.

Bottomly & Gabriel, Joe Bottomly, Great Falls, for claimant and appellant.

Marra, Wenz, Johnson & Hopkins, Thomas A. Marra, Great Falls, for defendant and respondent.

GULBRANDSON, Justice.

Kenneth Komeotis appeals from that part of a Workers' Compensation Court order which denies him a lump-sum payment of workers' compensation benefits. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the court erred in applying Sec. 39-71-741, MCA, retroactively to appellant's request for a lump-sum payment. We reverse and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this Court's decision in Buckman v. State Comp. Insurance Fund (Mont.1986), 730 P.2d 380, 43 St.Rep. 2216.

In February 1984, appellant suffered a work related injury which aggravated his degenerative arthritis. The respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) accepted liability and paid temporary total disability benefits to appellant. In May 1985, the State Fund converted appellant's benefits to permanent total disability benefits. Appellant requested that the Workers' Compensation Court grant him a lump-sum payment of a large part of his anticipated benefits.

The 1985 Montana Legislature amended Sec. 39-71-741, MCA, the statute governing the lump-sum conversion of workers' compensation benefits. The amendments codified prior Montana case law on lump-sum conversions. The Workers' Compensation Court, in this case, found that the 1985 amendments enacted new, stricter guidelines for the granting of lump-sum payments. The court found that the amendments profoundly changed the substantive law on such payments. The court then applied the new criteria from the 1985 amendments retroactively to appellant's case and denied him a lump-sum payment.

This Court handed down the Buckman decision (cited above) after the Workers' Compensation Court's ruling in the instant case. In Buckman, this Court specifically held that the statutory guidelines in the 1985 amendment to Sec. 39-71-741, MCA, could not be applied retroactively. Thus, the Workers' Compensation Court erred in applying the new statute to appellant's claim.

We decline to address the other issues appellant raises. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

TURNA...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
  • Komeotis v. Williamson Fencing
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1988
    ...reversed the lower court in the former appeal holding that the statute could not be applied retroactively. Komeotis v. Williamson Fencing (Mont.1987), 736 P.2d 93, 44 St.Rep. 298. The case was remanded for a determination of the lump sum issue applying the law as it existed at the time of t......