Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Oliver Arlington was employed by Miller's Trucking as a log truck driver and loader operator pursuant to an oral employment agreement. For his work, Miller's paid Arlington twenty-five percent of the "load rate" as calculated by Miller's. Arlington, however, asserted that according to the parties' oral agreement, he should have been paid a salary in the form of annual wages. Arlington filed a wage claim, seeking the pay he alleged he was owed in regular and overtime wages. The Department of Labor and Industry's bureau dismissed Arlington's claim for lack of merit and lack of sufficient evidence. On appeal, a bureau hearing officer dismissed Arlington's claim. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the hearing officer acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to require Miller's to produce material requested by Arlington and in refusing to admit tendered evidence, prejudicing the substantial rights of Arlington, and the district court erred in affirming the hearing officer's judgment; and (2) the hearing officer and district court incorrectly determined that Arlington engaged in activities of a character directly affecting the safety of the operation of motor vehicles in interstate commerce and thus was exempt from overtime requirements. Remanded. View "Arlington v. Miller's Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

Employee, a truck driver, resigned from his employment with Employer after he developed arthritis. Employee later filed an occupational disease claim, which the Montana State Fund (MSF) denied. The Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) concluded that Employee's job duties were the major contributing cause of his arthritic condition, and therefore, Employee was suffering from an occupational disease. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC did not err in concluding that Grande was suffering from a compensable occupational disease arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment, as the WCC's findings of fact were supported by substantial, credible evidence, and its conclusions of law were correct. View "Mont. State Fund v. Grande" on Justia Law

Employee filed a workers' compensation claim against Employer. Employer's Insurer accepted liability for Employee's claim. Insurer contracted with third-party Adjuster to provide services for Employee's claim. Employee and Insurer disagreed over elements of the claim, and Attorney advised Insurer on various legal matters. The claim was eventually resolved. Employee then filed the present action for unfair claims settlement practices, naming Insurer and an employee of Adjuster as defendants. Employee served Employer with a subpoena requesting, inter alia, a letter Attorney wrote to Adjuster's employee concerning the underlying case. Employer and Insurer objected to the subpoena, citing attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. The court denied the motions. Insurer then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the district court correctly applied the law of attorney-client privilege but incorrectly analyzed the work product doctrine. However, because the court reached the proper conclusion, supervisory control was unnecessary. View "Am. Zurich Ins. v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Randall Simms was injured during his employment. The Montana State Fund (MSF) provided workers compensation to Simms' employer, and later, paid continuing medical benefits for Simms. MSF subsequently utilized the services of a special investigative unit (SIU) to investigate Simms for fraud. The SIU took multiple videos of Simms in public places. The videos were deemed confidential criminal justice information (CCJI) by the district court. The court allowed them to be used in relation to Simms' workers' compensation claim in any manner consistent with the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure and workers' compensation court (WCC) procedures. Simms appealed, arguing that MSF did not having standing to file an action for dissemination under the Montana Criminal Justice Information Act of 1979, and that the district court inadequately balanced the demands of individual privacy against the merits of disclosure, did not follow established rules of statutory construction, and improperly identified and weighed the competing interests at issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err when it authorized MSF to disseminate the CCJI under the Act, and the court correctly interpreted the statute and adequately engaged in the statutorily mandated balancing of competing concerns. View "Mont. State Fund v. Simms" on Justia Law

James Whealon was employed by the Anaconda School District pursuant to a series of employment contracts. Upon retirement, Whealon filed a formal grievance, asserting that, under the terms of his contract, he was entitled to payment of his health insurance premiums by the District until he reached the age of sixty-five. The District denied his claim. The County Superintendent granted summary judgment to the District, holding that the language of the contract was unambiguous and that Whealon was not entitled to the claimed benefits beyond the date of his retirement. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding that the language of the contract was ambiguous. The district court reversed and reinstated the County Superintendent's ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court, holding (1) the district court did not err in holding that a county superintendent has authority to grant summary judgment; and (2) the district court did not err in reinstating summary judgment in favor of the district where the language of the agreement was unambiguous and the District was entitled to judgment. View "Anaconda Public Schools v. Whealon" on Justia Law

Edna Banco filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for an occupational disease (OD) in her right shoulder. Banco worked concurrently at 4B's Restaurant and the Child Development Center on Malmstrom Air Force Base (CDC). 4B's was insured by Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation (Liberty). Liberty denied Banco's claim for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) found (1) Banco was last exposed to work of the same type and kind that gave rise to her shoulder condition while she was working at CDC; and (2) thus, since Banco was not last exposed at 4B's, Liberty was not liable under the "last injurious exposure" rule set forth in In re Mitchell. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC had substantial credible evidence upon which to find Banco was last injuriously exposed at CDC to working conditions of the type and kind that led to her OD, and thus, Liberty was not liable for Banco's OD. View "Banco v. Liberty Nw. Ins." on Justia Law

In previous workers' compensation cases, the Montana Supreme Court had determined that its decisions apply retroactively to claims that are not "final" or "settled" at the time the decision was issued. Under statute, two types of claims fall under the definition of "settled," (1) claims where there has been a formal settlement agreement, and (2) claims that are "paid in full." In this case, the workers' compensation court (WCC) defined "paid in full" to mean that an injured worker received all the applicable benefits prior to a new judicial decision and had not received subsequent benefits on his or her pre-judicial decision claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC properly applied retroactivity law in formulating its definition of "paid in full." View "Flynn v. Mont. State Fund" on Justia Law

Employee worked as a shareholder accountant for Employer. Employee's employment contract contained a covenant not to compete. After Employer ended its employment relationship with Employee, Employee began working at Employer's competitor, where she provided accounting services for a few of Employer's former clients in violation of the restrictive covenant. Employee sought a declaration that the covenant was unenforceable. The district court determined that the covenant was reasonable and enforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Employer's covenant was unenforceable because (1) Montana law requires that an employer establish a legitimate business interest in a restrictive covenant, which demands that the restriction on post-employment activities be necessary to protect an employer's good will, customer relationships, or trade information; (2) an employer lacks a legitimate business interest in a covenant when, under ordinary circumstances, it ends the employment relationship with the employee; and (3) Employer in this case elected to end its employment relationship with Employee without any misconduct on the part of Employee. View "Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C." on Justia Law

Employee brought an action under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act, alleging that he was wrongfully discharged from employment. Employer moved for summary judgment, contending that it had good cause to terminate Employee. The district court granted Employer's motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Employer because disputed issues of material fact still existed as to whether Employer violated the express provisions of its written personnel policy by failing to apply it consistently and equally to all of its employees, whether Employee wrongfully demoted and transferred Employee, and whether this demotion and transfer was directly linked to Employee's discharge.

Heather Weber filed suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) to recover for personal injuries allegedly received during the course and scope of her employment with BNSF Railway Company, alleging BNSF breached its duty under FELA, violated the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), and violated the Safety Appliance Act (SAA), federal regulations, and other standards. The district court found BNSF not negligent. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court erred in granting BNSF's motion for judgment as a matter of law on Weber's LIA claim because Weber presented sufficient evidence that presented a factual issue whether the LIA had been violated and whether that violation played a part in causing Weber's injuries; and (2) the district court did not err in granting BNSF's motion to exclude testimony from Weber's treating physician about the results of a positron emission tomography (PET) scan performed on Weber. Remanded.