Scott v. Utility Line Contractors, 86-520

• Decision Date: 18 March 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-520,86-520
• Citation: 226 Mont. 154,734 P.2d 206,44 St.Rep. 547
• Parties: John F. SCOTT, Claimant and Respondent, v. UTILITY LINE CONTRACTORS, Employer, and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 206

734 P.2d 206

226 Mont. 154

John F. SCOTT, Claimant and Respondent, v. UTILITY LINE CONTRACTORS, Employer and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 86-520.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Feb. 5, 1987.

Decided March 18, 1987.

Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, John T. Dyre, Billings, for defendant and appellant.

Geoffrey R. Keller, Billings, for claimant and respondent.

WEBER, Justice.

The State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) appeals a summary judgment of the Workers' Compensation Court. The court ruled that claimant John F. Scott had met the statutory requirements for making a workers' compensation claim within one year by obtaining medical help which was billed to the Division of Workers' Compensation, and by assisting his employer in completing an Employer's First Report form. We affirm.

The issue is whether the Workers' Compensation Court was correct in determining that Mr. Scott had made a "claim" within one year under Sec. 39-71-601, MCA.

A stipulated set of facts was submitted to the court below. On October 10, 1982, Mr. Scott injured his right arm and shoulder while shoveling heavy mud for his employer, Utility Line Contractors, in Colstrip, Montana. He did not seek medical help until October 13, 1982, when he went to the emergency room at St. Vincent Hospital in Billings, Montana. The State Fund paid that medical bill. On November 2, 1982, Mr. Scott assisted his supervisor in completing an Employer's First Report form, which was then forwarded to the Division of Workers' Compensation. Mr. Scott has not completed a Form 54 claim and presented it to the Division of Workers' Compensation. A Form 54 is the usual form filed by claimants to present their claims.

Mr. Scott filed a petition for hearing before the Workers' Compensation Court on July 1, 1986. An issue arose as to whether he had met the one year limitation period set forth in Sec. 39-71-601, MCA. Mr. Scott moved for summary judgment on this issue, with briefs and supporting exhibits filed by both parties. The court granted summary judgment to Mr. Scott, and the State Fund appeals.

The preliminary question of whether the summary judgment is now appealable is addressed in the State Fund's brief. It points out the usual requirement for Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P., certification of appeal of a partial judgment. However, the procedural rules of the Workers' Compensation Court do not allow for such certification. The State Fund argues that the factors usually considered by district courts ruling on Rule 54(b) certifications support consideration of this appeal now. These factors include separability of this issue and the remaining unadjudicated issues, little possibility for a need for a second review of this issue, absence of a counter-claim set-off factor, and considerations of delay and judicial economy. We conclude there is no just reason for delay in considering this issue.

Did the Workers' Compensation Court err in determining that Mr. Scott had made a "claim" within one year under Sec. 39-71-601, MCA?

Section 39-71-601, MCA, provides:

Statute of limitation on presentment of claim--waiver. (1) In case of personal injury or death, all claims shall be forever barred unless presented in writing to the employer, the insurer, or the division, as the case may be, within 12 months from the date of the happening of the accident, either by the claimant or someone legally authorized to act for him in his behalf.

(2) The division may, upon a reasonable showing by the claimant of lack of knowledge of disability, waive the time requirement up to an additional 24 months.

There has been no allegation of a lack of knowledge on the part of Mr. Scott of his disability so as to waive the time requirement. Therefore, the question is whether Mr. Scott presented his claim within 12 months of the accident.

The State Fund contends that determining Mr. Scott met the statutory requirement for presenting a claim is contrary to this Court's opinion in Wassberg v. Anaconda Copper Co. (Mont.1985), 697 P.2d 909, 42 St.Rep. 388. In that case, the claimant was injured at work in June 1973. He filed a claim for compensation after the accident. He was again injured in July 1974. He did not file a claim for compensation after that accident. In 1976, the claimant saw a doctor for medical problems he described as arising out of the 1973 accident. In 1982, claimant's counsel...