CLARKE v MASSEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 95-106 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995 IN THE MATTER OF DAVID CLARKE, Petitioner/Appellant, -v- JUN 27 1995 SCOTT MASSEY, d/b/a ALL SEASONS CONSTRUCTION, Respondent/Respondent. APPEAL FROM: Workers' Compensation Court The Honorable Mike McCarter, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Mark For E. Jones, Missoula, Montana Respondent: Kristine L. Foot, Missoula, Submitted Montana on Briefs: Decided: Filed: June June 1, 27, 1995 1995 Justice James David Court's C. Nelson Clarke order prejudice delivered (Clarke) petition Opinion of from the Workers' January 27, 1995, appeals and judgment his the dated for attorney fees the under Court. Compensation dismissing with § 39-71-611, MCA. We affirm. Background This case the-job injuries Clarke's Truss for against Fund and Clarke independent contractor employment Massey's amounts prescribed an Court employee action seeking in on Clarke's claim for proposed attorney decision, against Massey damages, attorney fees filed however, in fees 1991, that reimburse to in District and 2 the an of his Workers' Clarke was Fund for limitations Court been made for the trial. January Court costs either the the be suit Compensation as having after to scope The Workers' MCA. findings to that the subject turn, brought was finding claim in Clarke 12, and right Massey Massey out, benefits which, its outside that turned compensation (Fund), that on- Construction asserted decision for compensation On November its it workers' Clarke. acting and directing § 39-71-504, Clarke's time issued and to As Seasons Fund contending or expended by Prior paid when he was injured. Compensation first had 1990. workers' Massey it compensation carry Employers' against for All not Clarke's benefits the d/b/a did Uninsured a penalty claim February Massey (Massey), by the assessed denied in Accordingly, paid repaid Clarke's Scott Fabrication were with sustained employer, insurance. all began under 1991, in Clarke Missoula §§ 39-71-515 filed County and 516, MCA. that he was entitled incurred In that in both proceedings. Massey 518, an award of Court and the It Compensation Court Court did have Massey and District Court damages against (subject fees to the § 39-71- and costs claim for proceedings, not against MCA, reimbursement Clarke's things, Clarke expenses attorney denied fees Court awarded 5 39-71-511, and for among other attorney Compensation District paid) District contended, wages and medical action. Workers' the lost benefits Court to The for Clarke the Workers' MCA, offset for action, obligation in the attorney however, jurisdiction District fees on the in the basis that in those to award fees file was closed February 7, 9, 1994, Clarke filed a motion in of $3,900 in proceedings. The Workers' Notwithstanding, 1992. that court in Compensation motion his an award of the action. The court reopened an order and permitting demand prior for the precluded. Compensation Clarke 1994. had fees been denying, filing concluded attorney ruling grounds, the Court of without previous was the law of a new petition 14, 1994, Court's Following the the as on procedural, On July the court for Workers' and The Workers' case, of but to attorney again on Clarke's denial opposed fees file, a new petition. the of 1991 prejudice, that filing filed attorney underlying entered Compensation some defense Court 8, 1994, June Court on March requesting incurred 25, Compensation closed Clarke's since that substantive, fees the was not Workers' file. his petition the filing requesting of Massey's 3 attorney response, fees both on August parties filed cross January motions 27, order 1995, for the and judgment denying Workers' Massey's motion Clarke judgment supported Compensation granting Clarke's petition. summary and Court issued for summary motion dismissing by briefs, with Cn its final judgment, prejudice Clarke's appeals. Issue Did motion the for attorney Workers' summary fees? the Workers' of Compensation judgment that Compensation Court MCA (1989), question standard Compensation of in this of review Court's grant the same as determine whether there is fact whether the for matter of plenary; law. we in the simply Murer correct. 516, Our 519-20, dispute, Workers' v. used 885 P.Zd and the party of determine State issue of a a whether motion entitled its Mut. the issues judgment (1994), there are the issue presented Court's of conclusions Here, of on appeal. First as law a is are 267 Mont. no material interpretation We of material conclusions Ins. summary court. to legal Workers' for district court's whether of of for the provisions from of genuine is the 430. resolution appeal by Compensation 428, Compensation an an absence review the petition interpreted denial moving Clarke's Massey's Review that is granting case. or judgment and in is properly Standard The err and in dismissing Underlying § 39-71-611, Court hinges facts upon § 39-71-611, MCA (1989). Discussion Clarke presents two arguments 4 he contends that reading together §§ 39-71-117, leads to the MCA, 39-71-401, conclusion that he was, therefore, insurance under one of either the state fund should be consider enroll in insurer, Ithe purposes of persuasive without at required merit. that and uninsured for Secondly, intent the because, intend Holmes similarly, in the 1990 318, permits attorney benefits 730 the fees he did of a private a self-insured for the cites no creative, Clarke and we conclude that plain language of at once, we should a applies insured the any uninsured legislature one law should references to from Judge this argument words Traynor is of plain legislative to that who violates statutes behind glean credulity is claim. look somehow the it be both and not benefit wisdom from notwithstanding, without any basis law. we note Buckman 321, compensation since compensation stretches that that services nevertheless, and Hand and employer; cannot, that Clarke's outset, injury. that, MCA, the [sic] MCA, conclude whatsoever At or retain an individual Justices and and the argues a violation." workers' plans; same workers' "[iIt that carry position, statute, by such we, his § 39-71-611, that would the was an to an employer Clarke of employers for Massey While Common sense dictate language three MCA 39-71-611." authority issue by law MCA, and 39-71-611, v. P.2d 380, Workers' against due a claimant. that Montana the 1989 Deaconess 382. Section Compensation insurers That apply Hosp. (X986), 39-71-611, Court who section 5 codes to have provides: to Clarke's 224 Mont. MCA award unreasonably (1989), reasonable denied uninsured that employers, language applied. of in not fit into an No. No. 3, this insurers to hold him by its the prejudice Massey's Clarke's that clear and be 2, is company the undisputed statutory bound transacting state employers' so Under an employer fund fund that under provided Massey definition. MCA and unambiguous does He is terms. Compensation MCA (1989), for petition for AFFIRMED. ., , YTazLA Chief statute § 39-71-611, Workers' motion means uninsured employer, 5 39-71-611, granted of No. It the from and to no one else. insurance plan or the category that an whatsoever that [iInsurer' chapter." uninsured interpreted properly to compensation any inapplicable We refers indication intent 1, 5 of any legislative plan plan part simply there an " under compensation for is MCA (1989), compensation business with any The statute 39-71-116(E), by nor Justice 7 in this summary attorney Court case and, judgment fees. (19891, is correctly in doing so, and dismissed
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.
