Montana court: Employee failed to give timely notice of workers’ comp claim

The Supreme Court of Montana has ruled that the workers’ compensation court correctly determined that an employee had not timely filed a written claim for benefits under Montana Code Section 39-71-601.

Related: Employee who tripped over her dog at home is denied workers’ comp benefits

The case

On Nov. 29, 2006, Brian Richardson worked the graveyard shift at a clinic in Billings, Mont., as a security guard for Securitas. At about 1:25 a.m., Richardson and other security guards responded to an altercation involving a psychiatric patient in the emergency department. Restraining violent patients was within the course and scope of Richardson’s employment as a security guard.

Afterwards, Richardson and his fellow guards noted the altercation in their daily activity report; Richardson indicated that he was hit a number of times during the altercation.

On June 17, 2008, Richardson saw Dr. Cynthia Kennedy for an evaluation of chronic headaches and nasal obstruction. Dr. Kennedy attributed Richardson’s symptoms to a nasal fracture from the 2006 incident. Dr. Kennedy performed surgery on June 25, 2008. Thereafter, Richardson learned that his private insurance would not pay for the entire surgery, and he approached Securitas about filing a workers’ compensation claim.

According to Richardson, he was told it was too late to file a claim at that time.

Richardson said that he had to stop working in September 2010 due to symptoms related to the 2006 injury to his nose. He filed a “First Report of Injury” with Securitas in October 2010, seeking workers’ compensation benefits. Securitas’ insurance carrier, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, denied the claim due to lack of notice and untimely filing.

Richardson filed a petition for hearing with the workers’ compensation court in July 2013, arguing that he was entitled to acceptance of his claim.

Indemnity moved for summary judgment, asserting that because Richardson had filed his First Report of Injury nearly four years after the alleged incident, he had failed to file a claim for compensation within the 36 month time period prescribed by Section 39-71-601.

The workers’ compensation court ruled in favor of Indemnity. A district court found that the Daily Activity Report was insufficient to be considered a claim under Section 39-71-601(1) and that Richardson had filed his First Report of Injury after the statute’s absolute deadline of 36 months from the date of the incident.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court of Montana.

Related: Two Chicago women plead guilty to $1.7 million workers’ comp fraud

Montana law

Montana Code Section 39-71-601(1) states:

Except for a claim for benefits for occupational diseases pursuant to subsections (3) and (4), all claims in the case of personal injury or death must be forever barred unless signed by the claimant or the claimant’s representative and presented in writing to the employer, the insurer, or the department, as the case may be, within 12 months from the date of the happening of the accident, either by the claimant or someone legally authorized to act on the claimant’s behalf.

The Montana Supreme Court’s decision

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the workers’ compensation court had correctly decided that Richardson had not timely filed a written claim for benefits under Section 39-71-601.

In its decision, the court explained that Richardson did not seek medical care for his alleged injuries within 12 months of the incident; Richardson and Securitas did not complete or file a first report of injury with Indemnity; and the Daily Activity Report that Richardson and his colleagues initialed did not even contain Richardson’s full name, indicate that he was in fact injured in the altercation or list an injury to his nose.

The court added that although Montana law does not require an injured worker to use a specific claim form, the documents provided to make a claim must “contain[] ample information to clearly inform the employer . . . of the nature and basis of [a] possible claim.”

The court concluded that the “six lines of the Daily Activity Report, identifying the initials of four employees involved in the incident,” contained “no information indicating that anyone, including [Mr.] Richardson, was injured in the altercation, much less that he suffered a potential compensable injury.” Because Securitas was not put on notice that it should “investigate the claim and if necessary prepare a defense,” the Daily Activity Report did not constitute a claim under Section 39-71-601, the court held.

The court then rejected Richardson’s alternative contention that the filing period was tolled both because his supervisor misstated the law when he was told the day after the altercation that he did not need to fill out workers’ compensation paperwork unless he was seeking treatment and that he did not know that he was disabled until he had to leave his job in 2010 due to his symptoms.

The court concluded that Richardson’s claim still was filed too late because Montana Code Section 39-71-601 allows the period of limitations to be extended for enumerated exceptions for no longer than 24 months, for a total limitations period of 36 months.

The case is Richardson v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, No. DA 18-0594 (Mont. July 16, 2019).

Related: Colorado court bars ‘excessive’ workers’ comp fines on corporate employers