Odenbach v. Buffalo Rapids Project , 225 Mont. 96 ( 1987 )


Menu:
  •                                No. 8 5 - 5 5 1
    IN THE SUPREFE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    1987
    LEON J. ODENBACH,
    Claimant and Appellant,
    BUFFALO RAPIDS PROJECT, d/b/a
    IRRIGATION PROJECT, Employer,
    and
    STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    APPEAL FROM:    The Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable
    Timothy Reardson, Judge presiding.
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Lloyd E. Hartford, Billings, Montana
    For Respondent:
    Crowley Law Firm; Terry G. Spear, Billings, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: April 24, 1 9 8 6
    Decided:   January 13, 1987
    a *,u Clerk
    4
    Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    Leon Odenbach was injured in an industrial accident in
    May 1978.        In December 1984, Mr. Odenbach filed a petition
    with the Workers' Compensation Court essentially requesting
    the conversion of all his future permanent total disability
    benefits into a lump sum payment.          The Workers' Compensation
    Court awarded Mr. Odenbach a partial conversion of future
    benefits.       Mr. Odenbach appealed and the State Compensation
    Insurance Fund cross-appealed.          We affirm the Workers' Com-
    pensation Court in part, reverse in part, and remand for
    proceedings pursuant to this opinion.
    The issues presented to us are:
    1.    Can the 7% discount of lump sum conversion of future
    permanent total disability benefits found in 5 39-71-741,
    MCA, as amended, be applied to claims arising out of injuries
    occurring before April 15, 1985, or would that application
    violate a claimant's constitutional rights?
    2.    Can the procedural requirements in 5 39-71-741, MCA,
    as amended, be applied to claims arising out of injuries
    occurring before April 15, 1985?
    3.    Did the Workers' Compensation Court err in granting
    in part and denying in part Mr. Odenbach's request for a lump
    sum   conversion of       his   future permanent   total   disability
    benefits?
    Leon Odenbach (claimant) suffered an industrial injury
    arising out of and in the course of his employment with
    Buffalo Rapids Project on May 10, 1978.             Mr. Odenbach is
    permanently totally disabled.            Buffalo Rapids Project was
    enrolled with the State Compensation Insurance Fund            (State
    Fund)    on    the date   of    the   injury.   State Fund   accepted
    liability for Mr. Odenbach's claim and began paying benefits
    in June    1978.     On December 13, 1984, claimant filed his
    petition for hearing with the Workers' Compensation Court
    requesting a lump sum award of $80,000 to purchase an annui-
    ty.   In addition, the claimant requested a lump sum award of
    $17,230.25 for the following purposes:
    a.   $6,723.00 to retire his mortgage on his home;
    b.   $2,660.00    to   replace   his   refrigerator,   kitchen
    range, washer and dryer;
    c.   $4,324.28 to pay off the installment contract on his
    energy efficient windows;
    d.   $1,874.97 to pay off the installment contract on his
    new furnace;
    e.   $768.00 to complete remodeling of his basement, and;
    f.   $880.00 to replace his dentures.
    The Workers' Compensation Court found that the claimant was
    entitled to a lump sum a.ward of $6,199.25 to pay off the
    installment contracts on his energy efficient windows and his
    new furnace.       In ad-dition, the claimant was entitled to an
    annual lump sum sufficient to cover the aggregate amount of
    his existing insurance policies which were currently costing
    the claimant $217 a month.       Finally, the claimant was found
    to be entitled to an $880 lump sum to replace his dentures.
    The Workers' Compensation Court found that the claimant was
    not entitled to the remaining lump sum amounts requested for
    his house because:
    These items and amounts are not necessary for the
    claimant to sustain himself financially, and thus,
    do not fall within the purview of MCA 39-71-741.
    The Workers' Compensation Court also stated regarding
    the requested lump sum for the a.nnuity that:
    Claimant is not entitled to a lump sum. award for
    the purchase of an annuity.   This Court has rou-
    tinely denied all annuity requests, reasoning that
    "an annuity request is analogous to the claimant's
    request to put an advance of his disability award
    'on interest.'" Stelling, WCC No. 8412-2757 (filed
    June 27, 1985), citing Kent 5 Siefert, 
    158 Mont. 79
    , 81, 
    489 P.2d 104
     (1971).
    Senate Bill 281 became effective on April 15, 1985.
    Sena.te Bill 281 amended 5 39-71-741, MCA, by (1) creating new
    criteria for establishing the need for a lump sum award; a.nd
    (2).    requiring that lump sum payments of permanent total
    disability benefits be discounted at 7% for each year of the
    estimated     cornpensa.tion period.    The parties have       raised
    various      constitutional    and     legal       issues   regarding
    §    39-71-741, MCA.
    I
    Can the 7% discount of lump sum conversions of future
    permanent total di.sability benefits found in 5 39-71-741,
    MCA, as amended, be applied to claims arising out of injuries
    occurring before April 15, 1985, or would that application
    violate a claimant's constitutional rights?
    This Court has recently decided this issue. In Buckman
    v.     Montana Deaconess Hospital and State Compensation Fund
    (Mont. 1986), - P.2d -, 43 St.Rep. 2216, we essentially
    held that the discount provision of            $   39-71-741, MCA, a.s
    amended could not be applied to a workers' compensation
    injury which occurred prior to April 15, 1985, the effective
    date of this statute.
    Accordingly, we hold    that the 7% discount provision
    found in 5 39-71-741, MCA, cannot be applied to the award for
    P r Odenbach's injury which occurred prior to April 1-5, 1985,
    4.
    the effective date of the discounting provision.
    Can the procedural requirements in    §   39-71-741, MCA, a s
    .
    amended, be applied to claims arising out of injuries occur-
    ring before April 15, 1985?
    Again, Buckman controls this issue:
    We therefore conclude that the amendments made in
    1985 to Sec. 39-71-741(2), MCA, cannot be applied
    in considering the Buckman application for a
    lump-sum conversion.   We note this is consistent
    with the 1985 amendments as there is no provision
    in those amendments stating that any portion should
    be applied retroactively, with a single exception
    of the discount provision.
    Buckman, - P.2d at -, 43 St.Rep. at 2219.              This holding
    is consistent with    §   1-2-109, MCA, which provides:      "No law
    contained in any of the statutes of Montana is retroactive
    unless expressly so declared."
    Accordingly, the procedural requirements in     §   39-71-741,
    MCA, as amended, cannot he applied to Mr. Odenbachls injury
    which occurred before April 15, 1985, the effective date of
    the procedural provisions.
    Did the W-orkerslCompensation Court err in granting in
    part and denying in part Mr. Odenbach"           request for a lump
    sum    conversion of his     future permanent total disability
    benefits?
    We rema.nd this issue for reconsideration by the Workers1
    Compensation Court in light of Buckman as well as this opin-
    ion.    In its reconsideration, the Workers' Compensation Court
    should apply the statutes and caselaw in effect on the date
    of Mr. Odenbachls injury.
    Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. for
    proceedings pursuant to this opinion.
    5
    We Concur:
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 85-551

Citation Numbers: 225 Mont. 96, 731 P.2d 1297, 1987 Mont. LEXIS 1030

Judges: Weber, Turnage, Harrison, Morrison, Gulbrandson, Sheehy, Hunt

Filed Date: 1/13/1987

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024