 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Thompson v. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corp.6/22/2004
Submitted on Briefs: February 24, 2004
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. The decision shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number, and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of non-citable cases issued by this Court.
Lennie Thompson (Thompson) appeals from the Workers' Compensation Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment dated June 12, 2002, finding Thompson was bound by his existing vocational plan; he had already received the maximum amount allowed for travel to and from school; he had failed to show that further education was in his best interest; and he continued to be temporarily totally disabled (TTD) until December 26, 2000, and was entitled to further TTD benefits during those periods that he was not receiving rehabilitation benefits. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2002, Thompson appealed to the Workers' Compensation Court the Department of Labor and Industry's Order denying his Petition to Invoke the Provisions of § 39-71-610, MCA. On January 28, 2002, after a telephonic hearing, the Workers' Compensation Court denied Thompson's appeal regarding benefits under § 39-71-610, MCA, and ordered an emergency trial on the merits for Thompson's further claims under said statute. The Workers' Compensation Court held the emergency trial on February 28, 2002, and ruled from the bench that Thompson was not entitled to mileage reimbursement and that his claim for job placement services was moot since such services were being presently provided. On June 12, 2002, after considering post-trial briefs from both parties, the Workers' Compensation Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment holding that Thompson: (1) was bound by his current vocational plan; (2) had already received the maximum amount allowed for travel to and from school; (3) failed to show further education was in his best interest; and (4) continued to be TTD until December 26, 2000, thus entitled to further TTD benefits during those periods that he did not receive rehabilitation benefits. Thompson appeals from this Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment.
DISCUSSION
This Court has said that a claimant has the burden of proof that he or she is entitled to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act. Hanks v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. , 2002 MT 334, 11, 313 Mont. 263, 11, 62 P.3d 710, 11. We review the Workers' Compensation Court's findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial credible evidence and review its conclusions of law to determine whether they are correct. Schimmel v. Montana Uninsured Emp. Fund, 2001 MT 280, 5, 307 Mont. 344, 5, 38 P.3d 788, 5. The general rule in Montana is that this Court will not address either an issue raised for the first time on appeal or a party's change in legal theory, because it is fundamentally unfair to fault the Workers' Compensation Court for failing to rule correctly on an issue it was never given the opportunity to consider. See Bekkedahl v. McKittrick , 2002 MT 250, 31, 312 Mont. 156, 31, 58 P.3d 175, 31.
Thompson argues that the Workers' Compensation Court erred when it determined that he had failed to illustrate that further education was in his best interest, failed to prove he was under duress when he signed the rehabilitation plan, and failed to persuade the court that he was entitled to reimbursement for his computer purchase. However, after a careful review
Page 1 2 Montana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|