 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smart v. Montana Historcial Society6/21/1996
53 St.Rep. 554
Submitted on Briefs February 8, 1996.
John Smart (Smart) appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Court finding that Smart is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits under § 39-72-701(1), MCA (1991), and limiting his benefits to a maximum award of $10,000 pursuant to § 39-72-405, MCA (1991). We affirm.
The sole issue presented for review is:
Did the Workers' Compensation Court err in finding that Smart is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits under the Montana Occupational Disease Act?
Factual and Procedural Background
Smart filed a claim on October 29, 1992, for an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Montana Historical Society. Smart had been employed by the Montana Historical Society as an archival photographer for 11 years. As a result of overexposure to toxic chemicals used in the photography process, Smart experienced nausea, headaches, chronic respiratory irritation, disorientation, memory loss, and depression. At the time of his injury, Smart was earning $16 per hour, plus benefits.
Smart's claim was accepted pursuant to the Montana Occupational Disease Act (MODA), set forth at Title 39, Chapter 72, Montana Code Annotated. The examining physician determined that Smart suffered from an occupational disease, but that the effects were not permanent so long as Smart did not continue his work in the darkroom.
The State Compensation Insurance Fund (the State Fund) paid Smart temporary total disability benefits. When Smart reached maximum medical improvement, the State Fund offered him $10,000, the maximum amount of benefits allowed under § 39-72-405, MCA (1991). Smart rejected the offer claiming that he is permanently totally disabled and is therefore entitled to benefits in excess of $10,000.
The State Fund, through Independent Rehabilitation Providers of Montana, performed an employability assessment on Smart to determine whether other employment was available according to his education and experience. The assessment determined that there were a number of positions available to Smart, all of which paid considerably less than the $16 per hour he had been making previously.
On July 22, 1994, Smart filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Workers' Compensation Court claiming that the $10,000 limit in the MODA does not apply in his situation as he is permanently totally disabled. The court denied Smart's motion and certified the matter as final for purposes of appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. Smart filed an appeal with this Court on October 25, 1994. We dismissed the appeal, without prejudice, on April 20, 1995, holding that the appeal was premature as the Workers' Compensation Court failed to decide the necessary substantive issues of claimant's benefits.
On May 1, 1995, Smart and the State Fund filed a joint Motion for Reconsideration before this Court. We denied this motion on May 9, 1995. On October 31, 1995, the Workers' Compensation Court issued a Decision and Final Judgment wherein the court ruled that Smart was not entitled to permanent total disability benefits under § 39-72-701(1), MCA (1991), and was limited to a maximum award of $10,000 pursuant to § 39-72-405, MCA (1991). Smart now appeals the Decision and Final Judgment of the Workers' Compensation Court.
Discussion
Did the Workers' Compensation Court err in finding that Smart is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits under the Montana Occupational Disease Act?
The Workers' Compensation Court determined that, even though Smart
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|