Miller v. Mont. State Fund
| Decision Date | 24 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | WCC No. 2020-5145 |
| Citation | 2021 MTWCC 3 |
| Parties | MICHAEL MILLER Petitioner v. MONTANA STATE FUND Respondent/Insurer. |
| Court | Montana Workers Compensation Court |
Summary: Pursuant to a full and final settlement Petitioner and Respondent reached at a settlement conference in 2001, this Court entered a judgment. Petitioner now seeks relief from the judgment under M.R.Civ.P. 60(b) on the grounds of mistake, newly discovered evidence, and fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct. He also makes an independent claim to set aside the judgment, alleging fraud upon this Court. Respondent moved for summary judgment, asserting that Petitioner's motion for relief from the judgment is time-barred and that Petitioner has not presented any evidence of fraud upon this Court.
Held: This Court denied Petitioner's motion for relief from the judgment because he did not make his motion within a reasonable time and his motion is time-barred by the 60-day statute of limitations in the 2001 version of Rule 60(b). This Court granted summary judgment to Respondent on Petitioner's independent claim to set aside the judgment because Petitioner has not presented any evidence supporting his claim of fraud upon this Court.
¶ 1 Pursuant to an agreement reached at a settlement conference in 2001 and memorialized in a Stipulation of Parties filed in Miller v. Montana State Fund, WCC No. 2000-0059 - which included an agreement that this Court would enter a judgment - this Court adjudged that Petitioner Michael Miller and Respondent Montana State Fund (State Fund) had fully and finally settled Miller's 1983 injury claim. Miller filed this case in 2020 and now moves under M.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for relief from that judgment.1 Miller also makes an independent claim to set aside the judgment on the grounds of fraud upon this Court.
¶ 2 State Fund opposes Miller's motion and moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller's motion is time-barred by the 60-day statute of limitations in the 2001 version of Rule 60(b). State Fund also asserts that Miller has not presented any evidence of fraud upon this Court.
¶ 3 As set forth below, Miller's motion for relief from this Court's June 14, 2001, judgment is time-barred. And, Miller has not set forth any evidence of fraud upon this Court. Accordingly, this Court denies Miller's motion for relief from the June 14, 2001, judgment and grants State Fund's Motion for Summary Judgment.
¶ 4 On October 23, 1983, Miller suffered a closed-head injury in the course of his employment.
¶ 5 State Fund accepted liability for Miller's claim.
¶ 6 On September 20, 1988, Miller and State Fund reached a compromise settlement agreement over their disputes as to the amount of benefits that State Fund owed and would owe, leaving medical benefits open. The settlement provided that State Fund would pay Miller $132,145.10 in a lump sum, the purpose of which was to allow him to purchase a small ranch and be self-employed.2
¶ 7 On November 4, 1988, the Department of Labor & Industry approved their settlement.3
¶ 8 On August 3, 1998, Miller filed a case against State Fund in which he sought rescission of the 1988 settlement agreement on the grounds of mistake of fact. He alleged that they were mistaken as to his physical ability to work on the ranch. This Court ruled that Miller's claim was time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations for claims based upon mistake of fact in § 27-2-203, MCA.4
¶ 9 On January 27, 2000, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed this Court's ruling.5
¶ 10 On March 29, 2000, Miller filed his second case against State Fund. He sought a lump sum of his future medical benefits and rescission of the 1988 settlement agreement on the grounds of mistakes of fact and mistakes of law.6 Inter alia, Miller again alleged that they were mistaken as to his physical ability to work on the ranch and also alleged that this Court and the Montana Supreme Court had erred in ruling that his claim was time-barred.7 Miller also alleged that State Fund was operating under mistakes of law when evaluating his claim for settlement in 1988 because: (1) it did not consider cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs); (2) it considered the social security offset even though he was not then receiving social security benefits; (3) it considered the cost to purchase an annuity that would pay his future benefits as an indication of settlement value, which Miller asserts is unlawful; and (4) it reduced its calculation of the value of Miller's future benefits to present value, which Miller asserts is unlawful.8
¶ 11 Prior to trial, this Court issued its Order Governing Further Proceedings, in which it clarified the claims to be tried.9 Because Miller brought the same mistake of fact claim that he brought in his first case against State Fund, this Court ruled that this claim was barred by res judicata.10 This Court also ruled that State Fund was not operating under a mistake of law by not considering COLAs because a claimant was not entitled to COLAs under the 1983 Workers' Compensation Act.11 This Court ruled that Miller could proceed to trial on his claim to lump sum his future medical benefits and his other claims that StateFund was operating under mistakes of fact and mistakes of law when evaluating his claim for settlement.12
¶ 12 Miller's second case against State Fund proceeded to trial. On May 14, 2001, this Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment.13 This Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to order State Fund to lump sum Miller's future medical benefits and, even if it had jurisdiction to do so, that Miller was not entitled to a lump sum of his future medical benefits.14 This Court also ruled that Miller's mistake of fact and mistake of law claims to rescind the 1988 settlement agreement were barred by res judicata because Miller could have brought these claims in his first case against State Fund.15 However, this Court took "evidence on the merits of all matters raised by claimant which state claims, regardless of whether res judicata is applicable, so that a complete record is made."16 Based on this evidence, this Court ruled that State Fund was not operating under mistakes of fact or law when it evaluated Miller's claim for settlement in 1988, which was not for a lump sum payment of undisputed permanent total disability benefits under § 39-71-741, MCA (1983); instead, it was a disputed liability settlement based on their dispute as to whether Miller was permanently totally disabled.17
¶ 13 In June 2001, Miller, his wife, and his former employer, who supported Miller, and State Fund attended a settlement conference, with this Court's hearings examiner serving as settlement master. Miller and State Fund reached a second settlement agreement to settle all their disputes over Miller's 1983 injury claim.
¶ 14 After the settlement conference, State Fund's attorney mailed Miller the proposed settlement documents. State Fund's attorney's letter states, in relevant part:
¶ 15 Thereafter, Miller and his wife signed the Stipulation of Parties and returned it to State Fund. State Fund's attorney signed it and filed it with this Court. The Stipulation of Parties provides that they reached "a full and final compromise settlement of all issues arising from Petitioner's injury on October 23, 1983, including those in WCC No. 2000-0059" and to "fully and finally compromis[e] all benefits payable under the Workers' Compensation and/or Occupational Disease Acts, including but not limited to medical, rehabilitation, wage loss and indemnity benefits."19 For its part of the settlement, State Fund agreed, inter alia, to pay Miller $67,500.20 In exchange, Miller agreed, inter alia, to settle "all benefit claims" and to "a complete closure of all other court proceedings against the State Fund, including appeal, as it pertains or relates to his October 23, 1983 injury."21 Miller agreed that he entered into the settlement "of his own free will and accord without any compulsion or duress and with the counsel and advice of Amy Miller and William Galt."22 The parties asked this Court to enter a judgment in accordance with their settlement agreement.23
¶ 16 Pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement, on June 14, 2001, this Court entered a Judgment and Order.24 This Court ordered State Fund to pay Miller the $67,500 and noted that, inter alia, Miller had agreed to dismiss a pending motion for reconsideration and to completely close all other court proceedings against State Fund, including appeal.25 This Court adjudged that the parties' dispute "has been resolved by an agreement between the parties [to] fully and finally compromis[e] all benefits payable under the Workers' Compensation and/or Occupational Disease Acts, including but not limited to medical, rehabilitation, wage loss and indemnity benefits."26
¶ 17 Miller filed the case at bar on August 11, 2020.
Miller's motion for relief from this Court's June 14, 2001, Judgment and Order under
¶ 18 In State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Chapman, the Montana Supreme Court held that M.R.Civ.P. 60 controls in cases in which a party seeks relief from a judgment of this Court.27
¶ 19 The version of Rule 60(b) in effect when this Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial