Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ingebretson v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

Court of Workers Compensation of Montana

January 12, 1995

VERNON L. INGEBRETSON Petitioner
v.
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION Respondent.

          ORDER GRANTING STAY OF EXECUTION AND JUDGMENT

          MIKE MCCARTER JUDEG.

         Summary: Respondent, which is in the process of appealing the Court's decision in this case, applied for a stay of execution of judgment and requested the Court to waive the requirement of a supersedeas bond. The initial application was rejected because respondent provided no affidavits or other documentation showing respondent's financial condition and ability to pay the judgment. On renewed application, financial information was provided by affidavit. Claimant opposed any stay, arguing he is in dire financial straits, having been without benefits for over a year.

         Held: While the Court is sympathetic to claimant's situation, respondent has the right to appeal and has convinced the Court that it has sufficient funds to pay the judgment. If the Court were to require respondent to pay benefits now, claimant may not be able to re-pay benefits were the Supreme Court to reverse this Court's decision. Unlike other situations, in which the Workers' Compensation Court has rejected requests for stay of payment of benefits, there is no indication that the self-insured employer has delayed the proceedings and every indication it will pursue this appeal expeditiously. Appellant is permitted to post a cash deposit of $20, 000 in lieu of bond.

         Topics:

Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations, and Rules: Montana Code Annotated: section 39-71-2910(2), MCA (1993).

Initial application for stay of execution of judgment rejected where self-insured employer-respondent, who planned to appeal decision awarding claimant benefits, failed to submit affidavits or other documentation of employer's financial condition along with application.

Appeals (To Supreme Court): Supercedeas Bond.

Self-insured employer which is appealing decision of WCC awarding benefits to claimant was allowed to make a cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond where claimant had no objection and section 25-10-401, MCA (1993), permits such substitution.

Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations, and Rules: Montana Code Annotated: section 25-10-401, MCA (1993).

Self-insured employer which is appealing decision of WCC awarding benefits to claimant was allowed to make a cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond where claimant had no objection and section 25-10-401, MCA, permits such substitution.

Appeals (To Supreme Court): Stay of Execution of Judgment.

Initial application for stay of execution of judgment rejected where self-insured employer-respondent, who planned to appeal decision awarding claimant benefits, failed to submit affidavits or other documentation of employer's financial condition along with application.

Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations, and Rules: Montana Code Annotated: section 39-71-2910(2), MCA (1993).

Although the Workers' Compensation Court was sympathetic to claimant's dire financial situation, and his desire for commencement of payment of benefits awarded in that Court's decision, respondent self-insured employer has the right to appeal and statutory provisions authorize a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal. Where appellant has demonstrated through affidavit that it has sufficient finances to pay the judgment, and has offered to make a cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond, and claimant may have difficulty re-paying benefits should the Supreme Court overturn this Court's decision, the application for stay is granted on condition appellant post $20, 000 cash deposit.

Appeals (To Supreme Court): Supercedeas Bond.

Although the Workers' Compensation Court was sympathetic to claimant's dire financial situation, and his desire for commencement of payment of benefits awarded in that Court's decision, respondent self-insured employer has the right to appeal and statutory provisions authorize a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal. Where appellant has demonstrated through affidavit that it has sufficient finances to pay the judgment, and has offered to make a cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond, and claimant may have difficulty re-paying benefits should the Supreme Court overturn this Court's decision, the application for stay is granted on condition appellant post $20, 000 cash deposit.

Appeals (To Supreme Court): Stay of Execution of Judgment.

Although the Workers' Compensation Court was sympathetic to claimant's dire financial situation, and his desire for commencement of payment of benefits awarded in that Court's decision, respondent self-insured employer has the right to appeal and statutory provisions authorize a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal. Where appellant has demonstrated through affidavit that it has sufficient finances to pay the judgment, and has offered to make a cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond, and claimant may have difficulty re-paying benefits should the Supreme Court overturn this Court's decision, the application for stay is granted on condition appellant post $20, 000 cash deposit.

         Respondent previously applied for a stay of execution of judgment and requested the Court to waive the requirement of a supersedeas bond. The Court denied the application because respondent failed to provide affidavits or other documentation demonstrating the respondent's financial condition and its ability to pay the judgment.

         On January 11, 1995, the Court received a second motion requesting a stay. The motion requested the Court to reconsider its denial of a waiver of the supersedeas bond or, in the alternative, to accept a $15, 000 cash deposit in lieu of a bond. An affidavit and financial information accompanied the motion.

         Upon receipt of the second motion the Court initiated a telephone conference call with Jerry W. Schuster and Starr Kelso, attorneys for the respondent, and Jon L. Heberling, attorney for the petitioner. After argument by both sides, the Court denied the renewed request to waive the bond requirement but granted the motion for a stay upon the condition that respondent post a cash ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.