Thompson v. State
| Decision Date | 17 August 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 06-0365.,DA 06-0365. |
| Parties | Lee N. THOMPSON, Darin Sharp and Scott Bailey, Petitioners and Respondents, v. STATE of Montana, Respondent and Appellant, and Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation and Montana State Fund, Intervenors and Appellants. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Hon. Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Anthony Johnstone (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana.
For Intervenors-Appellants: Kevin Braun (argued), Special Assistant Attorney General, Montana State Fund, Helena, Montana, Larry W. Jones (argued), Law Offices of Larry W. Jones, Missoula, Montana.
For Respondents: Norman L. Newhall (argued), Linnell, Newhall, Martin & Schulke, P.C., Great Falls, MT.
¶ 1 Lee Thompson, Darin Sharp, and Scott Bailey (collectively, "the Workers") each filed claims in the Workers' Compensation Court ("WCC") for workers' compensation benefits. In a separate action, the Workers jointly filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment in the WCC, naming the State of Montana ("State") as the sole respondent. They sought a declaration stating that the claimant disclosure procedures, specifically the claimant disclosure waiver provisions set forth in §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA (2003)1 violated their state constitutional right to privacy and deprived them of property without due process of law. The WCC allowed Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation ("Liberty") and Montana State Fund ("MSF"; collectively, "Intervenors") to intervene in the action. The WCC then granted summary judgment in favor of the Workers and held that §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, were unconstitutional. The WCC also awarded attorney's fees and costs against the State. Subsequently, the WCC denied Liberty's Motion for Reconsideration. The State and Intervenors (collectively, "Appellants") appeal. We reverse.
¶ 2 Appellants raise multiple and overlapping issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:
1. Did the WCC err by concluding that it had jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment in the particular context of this case?
2. Did the WCC err when it awarded attorney's fees and costs against the State?
3. Did the WCC err by ruling that the claimant disclosure procedures of §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, violate a workers' compensation claimant's constitutional right to privacy under Article II, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution?
4. Did the WCC err by ruling that the claimant disclosure procedures of §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, deprive a workers' compensation claimant of property without due process of law under Article II, Section 17 of the Montana Constitution?
¶ 3 Because the first two issues are dispositive of this appeal, we do not address Issue 3 or Issue 4. On appeal, MSF confines its arguments solely to Issues 3 and 4. Thus, we will not address MSF's arguments. Instead, we will address the arguments presented by the State and Liberty pertaining to Issues 1 and 2.
¶ 4 On June 30, 2004, the Workers filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment ("Petition") in the WCC. The State was the only respondent named in the Petition. The Workers sought a declaratory judgment stating that §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, are unconstitutional under Article II, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution. Article II, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution provides that "[t]he right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest."
¶ 5 Section 39-71-604(3), MCA, a provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, states that "[a] signed claim for workers' compensation or occupational disease benefits or a signed release authorizes a workers' compensation insurer ... to communicate with a physician or other health care provider about relevant health care information" and to receive such relevant information "without prior notice to the injured employee." The Uniform Health Care Information Act, codified as §§ 50-16-501 to-553, MCA, provides that a patient may authorize a health care provider to disclose the patient's health care information if the authorization identifies the nature of the information to be disclosed and identifies the person to whom the information is to be disclosed. Section 50-16-526, MCA. Section 50-16-527, MCA, in turn, explicitly provides an exception to the general rules set forth in § 50-16-526, MCA. Under § 50-16-527(5), MCA, a signed claim for workers' compensation benefits or a signed release authorizes a workers' compensation insurer to communicate with a physician or other health care provider about relevant health care information and receive such information without prior notice to the injured employee. The language of § 50-16-527(5), MCA, is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the language of § 39-71-604(3), MCA.
¶ 6 Essentially, the Workers argued that the claimant disclosure procedures set forth in §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, violated their state constitutional right to privacy because there was no compelling state interest which supported the right of private insurers to engage in private communications with health care providers for an injured employee without prior notice to the employee. The Workers also asked the WCC to award reasonable attorney's fees and costs against the State.
¶ 7 On July 21, 2004, pursuant to Admin. R.M. 24.5.309 and M.R. Civ. P. 24(a), Liberty moved to intervene in this action. According to Liberty, it is the "largest private workers' compensation carrier in the State of Montana." The WCC granted Liberty's motion to intervene on July 26, 2004. MSF subsequently filed a motion to intervene, also pursuant to Admin. R.M. 24.5.309 and M.R. Civ. P. 24(a), on August 23, 2004. MSF argued that a ruling on the constitutionality of § 39-71-604, MCA, would affect all workers' compensation insurance carriers in Montana, including MSF. On August 26, 2004, the WCC granted MSF's motion to intervene.
¶ 8 The Workers moved for summary judgment on October 15, 2004, asserting that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, were unconstitutional as a matter of law under Article II, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution.
¶ 9 On January 25, 2005, before the WCC ruled on the motion for summary judgment, the Workers filed a motion to amend their Petition. In addition to their original request that §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, be declared unconstitutional under Article II, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution, the Workers also sought a declaration stating that §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, are unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses of Article II, Section 17 of the Montana Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In other words, the Workers sought a declaratory judgment stating that §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, are unconstitutional because they violated the Workers' state constitutional right to privacy and deprived the Workers of property without due process of law under the Montana and United States Constitutions. The WCC granted the Workers leave to amend their Petition on February 11, 2005.
¶ 10 On May 6, 2005, the Workers filed a second motion for summary judgment, again asserting that no genuine issues of material fact existed. The Workers renewed their request for summary judgment on the right to privacy issue and also moved for summary judgment on the ground that §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, violated their "rights to due process of law under Article II, § 17 of the Montana Constitution and under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution."
¶ 11 On October 18, 2005, the WCC granted summary judgment in favor of the Workers. The WCC declared that §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, violated Article II, Sections 10 and 17 of the Montana Constitution. Further, the WCC noted that it need not address the constitutional challenges raised by the Workers pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Lastly, the WCC stated that the Workers' request for attorney's fees and costs was "well taken" and ordered the Workers to submit an itemization of attorney's fees and an application for taxation of costs. On October 19, 2005, the WCC issued an order amending its Order Granting Motions for Summary Judgment to correct a typographical error.
¶ 12 On November 4, 2005, Liberty filed a lengthy Motion to Reconsider. Three days later, MSF filed a Request for Clarification, inquiring as to the constitutionality of §§ 39-71-604(2) and 50-16-527(4), MCA, which also set forth claimant disclosure procedures. In a response dated November 16, 2005, the State noted that it did not oppose Liberty's Motion to Reconsider. Additionally, the State objected to the WCC's award of attorney's fees and costs and also questioned the WCC's jurisdiction to make such an award.
¶ 13 On April 28, 2006, the WCC denied Liberty's Motion to Reconsider and rejected the State's challenge to the WCC's jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and costs. In the course of its analysis, the WCC also addressed its jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment in this case. The WCC did not respond to MSF's Request for Clarification. Appellants appeal from the October 18, 2005 Order Granting Motions for Summary Judgment, the October 19, 2005 Order Amending Order Granting Motions for Summary Judgment, and the April 28, 2006 Order Denying Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration.
¶ 14 Interpretation and construction of a statute is a matter of law. Madrid v. Zenchiku Land and Livestock, 2002 MT 172, ¶ 5, 310 Mont. 491, ¶ 5, 51 P.3d 1137, ¶ 5. Likewise, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of The EState F. Big Spring v. Conway
...law. Indian Health Bd. of Billings, Inc. v. Mont. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 2008 MT 48, ¶ 20, 341 Mont. 411, 177 P.3d 1029 (citing Thompson v. State, 2007 MT 185, ¶ 28, 338 Mont. 511, 167 P.3d 867). Therefore, despite the District Court's intimation in its order that William and Julie someho......
-
In re Petition for Declaratory Ruling re SDCL 62–1–1(6)
...to issue declaratory ruling); Health Cent. v. Comm'r of Ins., 152 Mich.App. 336, 393 N.W.2d 625, 631 (1986); and Thompson v. State, 338 Mont. 511, 167 P.3d 867, 873–74 (2007)(involving declaratory judgments, not declaratory rulings); Beason v. N.C. Dep't of Sec'y of State, 226 N.C.App. 233,......
-
Pinnow v. Montana State Fund
...161-62, 587 P.2d 11, 12 (1978). ¶ 43 Courts of limited jurisdiction have only such power as is expressly conferred by statute. Thompson v. State, 2007 MT 185, ¶ 24, 338 Mont. 511, ¶ 24, 167 P.3d 867, ¶ 24 (citing Jenkins v. Carroll, 42 Mont. 302, 312, 112 P. 1064, 1069 (1910)). Accordingly,......
-
Herman v. Mont. Contractor Comp. Fund
...to the efforts of an attorney in a workers' compensation claim are benefits to which an attorney fee lien can attach). 2. 2007 MT 185, 338 Mont. 511, 167 P.3d 867. 3. At a hearing on, inter alia, the parties' motions for summary judgment, this Court ordered MCCF "to respond to Herman's Audi......