CONTINENTAL INS CO v HORTON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 79-112 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY and RAYMOND CORCORAN TRUCKING, Employer, Defendant and Appellant, RICHARD B. HORTON, Claimant and Respondent. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Pedersen, Herndon, Harper & Munro, Billings, Montana For Respondent: William T. Kelly, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs: April 24, 1980 Decided : Filed: JUL 2 2 I Y B ~ JUL 2 2 1~ Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of the Court. C o n t i n e n t a l I n s u r a n c e Company a p p e a l s f r o m a n o r d e r o f Workers' the C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t d e n y i n g t h e I n s u r a n c e Company's motion f o r an evidentiary hearing p r i o r t o a j u d i c i a l mination of a n award of R i c h a r d B. deter- a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . H o r t o n ( c l a i m a n t ) was i n j u r e d i n a n i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t o n May 2 8 , 1975. c o u r s e of h i s employment. H i s i n j u r y a r o s e o u t of Initially, and i n t h e t h e I n s u r a n c e Company p a i d c l a i m a n t h i s p r o p e r d i s a b i l i t y r a t e and c e r t a i n m e d i c a l expenses. During approximately t h e next 18 months t h e claimant sought addi- t i o n a l m e d i c a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r h i s i n j u r y and u n d e r w e n t two operations. By J u n e , 1 9 7 7 , t h e I n s u r a n c e Company w a s r e f u s i n g t o pay c e r t a i n m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d by c l a i m a n t . r e f u s e d t o pay c l a i m a n t ' s full disability rate. They a l s o As a r e s u l t , claimant f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r an emergency h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e Workers' Compensation Court. fact, c o n c l u s i o n s of The judgment law and judgment MCA]. t h e Workers' in claimant's favor. awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s t o c l a i m a n t p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 92-616, 39-71-611, That Court e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of Claimant's R.C.M. 1947 [now s e c t i o n attorney submitted a statement t o Compensation Court c l a i m i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n t h e c a s e t o t a l i n g $3,355.19. Subsequently, the I n s u r a n c e Company f i l e d a p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t i n g a h e a r i n g o n t h e question of attorney fees. A h e a r i n g was h e l d b e f o r e t h e W o r k e r s ' Compensation Court f o r t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e o f h e a r i n g a r g u m e n t s on w h e t h e r a h e a r i n g on a t t o r n e y f e e s should be g r a n t e d . The Workers' Compensation Court entered an order granting Horton's motion f o r leave t o verify h i s previously filed statement for attorney fees and c o s t s , and d e n i e d t h e I n s u r a n c e Company's m o t i o n f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g p r i o r t o a n award of a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . This appeal followed. The s o l e i s s u e , a s f r a m e d b y a p p e l l a n t I n s u r a n c e Company, i s w h e t h e r t h e 1979 amendment t o s e c t i o n 39-71-611, MCA, pro- v i d i n g t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s s h a l l b e e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e W o r k e r s ' Compensation judge i n s t e a d of t h e D i v i s i o n of Workers' Compensation r e q u i r e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , i n c l u d i n g sworn t e s t i m o n y and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n and award of I n 1 9 7 9 , s e c t i o n 39-71-611, t h e amendment prior t o the attorney fees. was amended. MCA, Prior to t h i s s t a t u t e read: "In the event the insurer denies the claim for compensation o r terminates compensation b e n e f i t s , and t h e c l a i m is l a t e r adjudged c o m p e n s a b l e , b y t h e d i v i s i o n o r o n a p p e a l , the insurer shall reasonable & attorfees n e y s ' - -a s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e d i v i s i o n . . . " (Emphasis added.) - A f t e r t h e amendment t h i s s t a t u t e read: "In the event an insurer denies l i a b i l i t y for a c l a i m f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n o r t e r m i n a t e s compens a t i o n b e n e f i t s and t h e c l a i m i s l a t e r a d j u d g e d c o m p e n s a b l e b y t h e w o r k e r s ' compens a t i o n j u d g e o r o n a p p e a l , the i n s u r e r s h a l l pay r e a s o n a b l e c o s t s & a t t o r n e y s ' -e-a s fe s e s t a b l i s h e d by the w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n judge." (Emphasis added.) For t h e purposes of this case, t i o n between t h i s s t a t u t e as a n d a f t e r t h e amendment s a t i o n judge" the only pertinent distinc- i t e x i s t e d p r i o r t o t h e amendment is t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n of P.2d Smith v. P i e r c e P a c k i n g Co. 8 3 4 , 35 St.Rep. 979. I n Smith, f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t no e v i d e n c e o f Compensation Court. M o n t . -9 58 1 as i n the present case, a t t o r n e y f e e s was the improper s u c h f e e s was a d d u c e d b e f o r e I n Smith, case, t h e a p p e l l a n t c i t e d C r n c e v i c h v. Corp. (1975), 1 6 8 Mont. t h i s Court decided t h e (19781, a p p e l l a n t contended t h a t an award of t h e Workers' compen- for "division." I n 1 9 7 8 , p r i o r t o t h e amendment, c a s e of "workers' 1 1 3 , 5 4 1 P.2d as in the present Georgetown R e c r e a t i o n 56, for the proposition t h a t e v i d e n c e must be i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e m o n s t r a t e t h e p r o p e r amount o f response t o the appellant's attorney fees. to This Court's c o n t e n t i o n i n S m i t h was a s f o l l o w s : " F u r t h e r , c l a i m a n t a r g u e s t h a t no e v i d e n c e p e r s e of a t t o r n e y f e e s need be p r e s e n t e d i n a workers' compensation case, as the procedure e n t a i l s submission of a v e r i f i e d p e t i t i o n t o t h e d i v i s i o n , s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e number of h o u r s s p e n t and s e r v i c e s performed. The d i v i s i o n a d m i n i s t r a t o r t h e n reviews t h e p e t i t i o n and s e t s a 'reasonable fee'. W concur." e M o n t . -9 5 8 1 P.2d a t 8 3 8 , 3 5 S t . R e p . a t 9 8 4 . I n o t h e r words, the rules pertaining to attorney fees as e n u n c i a t e d i n C r n c e v i c h do n o t a p p l y i n w o r k e r s ' cases. I n the present case, the appellant contends that the amendment t o s e c t i o n 39-71-611, MCA, r e q u i r e s us Smith and a p p l y t h e Crncevich r u l e t o w o r k e r s ' cases. to overrule compensation W decline t o s o hold. e The amendment, s e t s the reasonable MCA, compensation n o t e d a b o v e , m e r e l y c h a n g e s t h e p a r t y who fee. The amendment t o s e c t i o n 39-71-611, does not change t h e Smith d e c i s i o n . The s t a t u t e b o t h b e f o r e a n d a f t e r t h e amendment d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t o determine attorney fees i n workers' compensation cases. The method used t o f i x a t t o r n e y f e e s i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y w i t h t h e Workers' Compensation judge, and t h e m a t t e r of concerning attorney fees is also discretionary. a l l o w such a h e a r i n g i s not p e r s e a n abuse of the present case, the appellant's allowing a hearing The f a i l u r e t o discretion. only a l l e g a t i o n of In abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i s t h e f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e a h e a r i n g on a t t o r n e y f e e s . S i n c e we h o l d t h a t s u c h a h e a r i n g i s n o t compensation cases, t h e Workers' required f o r workers' Compensation Court is affirmed. Affirmed. Chief J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.