Submitted: October 15, 2007
ORDER DEEMING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS TO
BE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING THE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DECLARING § 39-71-520(2), MCA, TO
BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
JAMES
JEREMIAH SHEA JUDGE
Summary:
Respondent Uninsured Employers' Fund moved for dismissal
because it contends Petitioner did not timely file his
petition with this Court. The UEF argues § 39-71-520(2),
MCA, requires a petitioner to file a petition before this
Court within 60 days of the mailing of the mediator's
report or the UEF's determination becomes final. The
mediator's report and recommendation was mailed on
January 31, 2007. UEF notified the mediator and Petitioner
that it would not accept the mediator's recommendation on
February 21, 2007. Petitioner petitioned this Court on April
10, 2007, 69 days after the mediator's report was mailed.
Petitioner argues that a reasonable interpretation of §
39-71-520(2), MCA, is that it is the mediator's report,
and not the UEF's determination, that becomes final if no
party petitions the Court within 60 days. Petitioner argues
that another reasonable interpretation of the statute would
allow 85 days to petition the Court. Petitioner argues that
the statute is discretionary and not jurisdictional. Finally,
Petitioner raises multiple constitutional challenges arguing
that § 39-71-520(2), MCA, is void for vagueness,
violates his constitutional right to equal protection under
the law, and is an impermissible exercise of sovereign
immunity.
Held:
Although Petitioner's contention that the department
mediator's report becomes final absent a petition filed
in this Court within 60 days is a reasonable interpretation,
so is UEF's interpretation that the UEF's
determination becomes final if no petition is filed. The time
limit provided for in § 39-71-520(2), MCA, is not tolled
during the 25-day period which the parties have to notify the
mediator whether they accept the mediator's
recommendation. The time limits imposed in § 39-71-520,
MCA, are jurisdictional and bar this Court from waiving them
upon equitable grounds. However, § 39-71-520(2), MCA,
can reasonably be interpreted to mean that either the
UEF's determination or the department mediator's
report becomes final if a petition is not filed in this Court
within 60 days. Therefore, the statute is unconstitutionally
vague because it requires those of ordinary intelligence to
guess as to its meaning.
Topics:
Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations, and Rules:
Montana Code Annotated: 39-71-520. Section
39-71-520, MCA, cannot clearly be interpreted to mean that it
is the mediator's report which becomes final if
settlement is not reached and a petition is not filed within
60 days of the mailing of the mediator's report. It can
also reasonably be interpreted to mean that the UEF's
determination becomes final if a petition is not filed within
60 days.
Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations, and Rules:
Montana Code Annotated: 39-71-520. Section
39-71-520, MCA, is not tolled during the 25-day period which
the parties have to notify the mediator as to whether they
accept the mediator's recommendation.
Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations, and Rules:
Montana Code Annotated: 39-71-520. The time limit
imposed in § 39-71-520(2), MCA, is jurisdictional in
nature and this Court is without authority to waive it.
Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations, and Rules:
Montana Code Annotated: 39-71-520. Section
39-71-520(2), MCA, is unconstitutional because it is so
ambiguous that it is void for vagueness. It can reasonably be
interpreted to mean that either the Uninsured Employer's
Fund's determination or the mediator's report become
final if a petition is not filed within 60 days, and
individuals of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess
at this section's meaning.
Constitutional Law: Vagueness. Section
39-71-520(2), MCA, is unconstitutional because it is so
ambiguous that it is void for vagueness. It can reasonably be
interpreted to mean that either the Uninsured Employer's
Fund's determination or the mediator's report become
final if a petition is not filed within 60 days, and
individuals of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess
at this section's meaning.
Standard
of Review
¶
1 A motion to dismiss may be granted when, in considering the
motion, the petition is construed in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party, all allegations of fact contained
therein are taken as true, and the court can conclude that
the nonmoving party would not be entitled to relief based on
any set of facts.[1] In the present case, the parties each
submitted exhibits in support of their arguments. Thus, the
motion is better characterized as a motion for summary
judgment. A motion for summary judgment will be granted if
the pleadings, discovery, and documents submitted by the
parties show there is no genuine issue as to material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.[2]
¶
2 Parties are ordinarily entitled to notice when the Court
intends to convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for
summary judgment. However, in this case, the motion has
largely been decided upon legal grounds and no material facts
in dispute affect this motion. If either party believes the
lack of notice is prejudicial, that party should notify the
Court within ten days of this Order and the Court will
consider reopening this matter.
Factual
Background
¶
3 The facts pertinent to disposition of this matter are as
follows:[3]
¶ 3a Petitioner Shelly Weidow was injured on June 13,
2006, while installing trim in Respondent/Employer's
residence. Petitioner timely notified his employer of the
injury and filed a claim for benefits in October 2006. The
Uninsured Employers' Fund (UEF) denied liability. The
matter went before a Department of Labor and Industry
(department) mediator on January 4, 2007.
The mediator mailed her report and recommendation to the
parties on January 31, 2007.
¶ 3b On February 21, 2007, Petitioner's counsel sent
a letter to the mediator notifying her that Petitioner
accepted her recommendation and was willing to negotiate a
settlement based on the recommendation. In that letter,
Petitioner's counsel also requested the mediator issue
her "decision" as soon as possible.
¶ 3c The UEF also sent the mediator a letter on February
21, 2007. The UEF's letter stated that no additional
information provided during the mediation reversed its
earlier decision denying benefits. The UEF also stated that
since it had not received any information that the claim was
settled per the mediator's recommendation, it would
continue to deny liability for the claim.
¶ 3d The parties apparently undertook settlement
discussions, but did not reach a settlement. Petitioner filed
his claim in this Court on April 10, 2007.
Discussion
¶
4 The UEF argues its motion to dismiss should be granted
because Petitioner failed to petition this Court within the
time period provided by statute. The statute at issue is
§ 39-71-520(2), MCA, which states:
(1) A dispute concerning uninsured employers' fund
benefits must be appealed to mediation within 90 days from
the date of the determination or the date that the
determination is considered final.
(2) (a) If the parties fail to reach a settlement through the
mediation process, any party may file a petition before the
workers' compensation court.
(b) A party's petition must be filed within 60 days of
the mailing of the mediator's report provided for in
39-71-2411unless the parties stipulate in writing to a longer
time period for filing the petition.
(c) If a settlement is not reached through mediation and a
petition is not filed within 60 days of the mailing of the
mediator's report, the determination by the department is
final.
¶
5 As discussed further below, Petitioner contends that §
39-71-520(2), MCA, is capable of multiple interpretations,
some of which would consider his petition to be timely filed.
Specifically, Petitioner argues the "determination by
the department" that becomes final as provided in §
39-71-520(2)(c), MCA, is the determination or final report
issued by the department mediator. Petitioner also contends
that the statute is unconstitutional in that it violates a
claimant's equal protection rights or is void for
vagueness. Petitioner's arguments are addressed in turn.
A.
Section 39-71-520, MCA, cannot clearly be interpreted to mean
that it is the mediator's report which becomes final if a
settlement is not reached and a petition is not filed within
60 days of the mailing of the mediator's report.
¶
6 Petitioner argues that § 39-71-520, MCA, may be
construed to mean that when a settlement is not reached and a
petition is not filed within 60 days of the mailing of the
mediator's report, the mediator's report becomes
final.[4] Petitioner argues that § 39-71-520
(2)(b)-(c), MCA, refers to mediation conducted by the
mediation unit of the department, and it is therefore
reasonable to conclude that the "determination of the
department" which becomes final if a petition is not
filed within 60 days, is the department mediator's
decision.[5]Petitioner argues that the cross-reference
to § 39-71-2411, MCA, found at § 39-71-520(2)(b),
MCA, supports this interpretation because §
39-71-2411(7), MCA, states in part, "If either
party does not accept the mediator's recommendation,
the party may petition the workers' compensation court
for resolution of the dispute."[6] Petitioner argues that since
the UEF was the party who would not accept the mediator's
report, it is the UEF who should have petitioned the
Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) for resolution of the
dispute.[7]
¶
7 UEF argues the plain language of the statute indicates that
the resolution suggested by the mediator is not a binding
"decision" or "determination," but only a
recommendation incapable of becoming final.[8] Further, UEF
contends no ambiguity exists as to what
"determination" is referred to in the statute, and
the only reasonable interpretation is that the UEF's
determination becomes final if no resolution is reached in
mediation and the claimant fails to file a petition within 60
days of the mailing of the mediator's
report.[9]Although UEF argues the statute is clear ...