BELTON v CARLSON TRANSPORT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 85-40 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 RALPH V. RELTON, Claimant and Appellant, -vsCARLSON TRANSPORT, Employer, and HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO., Third-Party Defendant and Respondent, and RICE TRUCK LINE, Employer, and TRANSPORT INDEMNITY COMPAIU, Defendant and Respondent, APPEAL FROM: Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable Timothy Reardon, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Kelly & Halverson, P.C.; Sheehy, Prindle Victor Halverson, Billings, Montana & Finn; For Respondent: Garlington, Lohn & Robinson; Larry E. Riley, Missoula, Montana Crowley Law Firm; L. Randall Bishop, Rillings, Montana Submitted on briefs: December 20, 1985 Decided: February 13, 1986 fLbi Filed: i'g@? Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the Opinion of the Court. The appellant, Ralph Belton, appeals the judgment of the Workers' Compensation Court. That court ordered a recoupment of an overpayment related to a social security offset.; denied a requested total lump sum conversion; granted a partial lump sum conversion; denied penalty for unreasonable payment of medical expenses; and ordered payment of medical expenses. We affirm in part and remand with instructions. Three issues are presented for review: 1. Whether it was error to permit recoupment of overpayments. 2. Whether it was error to deny a total lump sum conversion. 3. Whether it was error to deny penalty for insurer medical payments. The appellant, Ralph Eelton, is now 61 years old. He suffered a back injury in 1 9 7 7 while working for Carlson Transport. Carlson Transport's Hartford Accident and Indemnity. compensation insurer was Hartford accepted liability and made payments to the appellant. The appellant suffered injury to his back again in 1 9 7 9 . This time he was working for Barker Trucking. Barker was uninsured, but under contract with Rice Truck Line, insured by the respondent, Transport Indemnity. The issue of which insurer was liable for successive injury in this case was decided in Belton v. Carlson Transport, et al. (Mont. 1983), 658 P.2d 405, 40 St.Rep. 158. Pursuant to the opinion in Belton the Workers' Compensation Court ordered the respondent, Transport Indemnity, to pay the appellant's compensation benefits and accident-related m.edical costs incurred since the 1979 injury. The issues in this case, as it is presently before this Court, developed in 1984 when the appellant petitioned for a hearing before the Workers1 Compensation Court requesting a total lump sum payment, an order requiring the respondent to pay medical costs, unreasonableness. denial and a and The a statutory penalty for insurer respondent answered, requesting a termination of benefits until an existing overpayment related to the social security offset was repaid. The Workers' Compensation Court denied a total lump sum conversion, but it did grant a partial lump sum advance. It ordered the respondent to pay the medical expenses, but it denied invoking unreasonableness. the statutory penalty for insurer It then ordered recoupment on behalf of the respondent for overpayment. This recoupment was to be paid from the partial lump sum advance. The first issue is whether the Workers' Compensation Court erred in permitting recoupment of overpayments made by the insurers, Hartford and Transport Indemnity. to appellant's biweekly In addition compensation payments he received social security disability payments. Montana law allows an offset against compensation when an injured worker is also receiving social security disability. and 39-71-702(2), MCA. See, § S 39-71-701 (2) The insurers did not take this offset and by the time of the hearing on this matter overpayments equalled $18,461.58. Hartford had overpaid $14,630.81 of this amount and the respondent had overpaid the balance. We hold that the insurers are entitled to the offset as found by the Workers1 Compensation Court. The second issue is whether the Workers' Compensation Court erred in denying a total lump sum conversion. The appellant sought a lump sum conversion because he had unpaid debts, an inefficient automobile, and costly monthly rent. One of the appellant's theories was that an outright purchase of a house would help eliminate his financial problems. The FJorkers' Compensatjon Court determined that it was in the appellant's best interest to award a partial. Iump sum to allow discharge of debt and to purchase a fuel efficient automobile. However, it determined that the appellant did not submit substantial credible evidence that it was in his best interest to purchase a home. We agree. The Montana Workers' Compensation Act provides for lump sum payment. See, § 39-71-741, MCA. The Montana Legislature has recently amended this code section. 1.5, Ch. 471, Laws of Montana (1985). See, Act of April The effective date of the amendment followed the hearing on this matter and the amendment does not apply in this case. The law in effect and applicable to the case presented here is that each case for a lump sum payment stands or falls on its own merits. Utick v. Utick 355, 593 P.2d 739, 741. will not be (1979), 181 Mont. 351, The denial of a lump sum settlement reversed on appeal unless the Workers' Compensation Court is shown to have abused its discretion. Ruple v. Peterson Logging Company 1252, 1254, 41 St.Rep. 704, 706. (Mont. 1984), 679 P.2d The general rule is that payments under the compensation act are periodic. settlements are an exception to this rule. Ilont. 351, 354, 593 P.2d at 741. only granted "pressjng where need," or there where is Utick (1979), 181 Lump sum settlements are "outstanding "the Lump sum best indebtedness," interests of the claimant, his family and the general public will be served." Willoughby v. Arthur McKee & Co. (1980), 187 Mont. 253, 257, 609 P.2d 700, 702. The appellant here demonstrated outstanding indebtedness in the amount of over $5,000 in addition to the $18,000 due the insurers for overpayment of benefits. He demonstrated a pressing need for a better automobile. also The Workers' Compensation Court granted a lump sum payment for the debts and the automobile hut denied a total sum that would enable the appellant to purchase a house. We hold that this denial was a proper exercise of the court's discretion. The appellant did not introduce evidence which showed he had age or health reasons which necessitated the purchase of a home. Testimony by appellant that he wished to avoid future escalation of rent payments is not adequate to meet the burden of advancing substantial credible evidence, Dumont v. Mickens Bros. Construction Co. (1979), 183 Mont. 190, 201, 598 P.2d 1099, 1105, that there was "pressing need" for him to purchase a house. Therefore, we hold the partial lump sum advance was proper. The third issue presented is whether the Workers' Compensation Court erred in denying the appellant penalty for respondent's payment. unreasonable treatment of the medical The respondent was obligated to pay the appellant's medical costs but it had refused to make these payments. Workers' Compensation unreasonable. that no cost Court found that this The refusal was The Workers' Compensation Court determined statutory penalty applied, however, because the statute spoke of compensation and not medical benefits. This Court recently addressed this issue in Carlson v. Cain (Mont. 1985), 700 P.2d 607, 42 St.Rep. 695. We decided
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.
