thank you donors judge baez judge to shima and judge bad my name is jeffrey angel i'm an attorney from bozeman montana and i represent jeremy rudy he was a twenty two year old  gentleman working in bozeman montana and he felt two and a half stories severely injuring his brain and what we have found from this case and from the others that appear before the your lifetime if they don't give it today and you go to work comp course and they give it tomorrow there's no longer a controversy so what he didn't get they didn't pay for pain medication a better medication respite care he went home to his parents house and when he showed up on sunday night to get back in twenty three years old can't care for himself his bags are on the door step and he has no place to week but they provided this week what are you going to ask to work comp court to do order him to go back in time and give you that treatment that dumber ciliary care that physical therapy that you lost out on an average back because the claim for the benefit is not just this all you can go get a twenty percent penalty but that has nothing to do with bad taste are you take the same counsel let me see if i get a straight answer in this case he is hoping for them accountable for all of the money they made at the expense of his recovery how much how much did they save we weren't allowed to do discovery his did was wrong it's more than seventy five thousand dollars it's in the briefs on the first page in the ninth circuit and it was before the workers comp and carry the federal district court and it right here it says on brief page one statement of jurisdiction the amount of controversy expedient seventy five thousand dollars and parties are citizens of different states that's a stipulated set of facts that was present present for the district court present here there were no it was an my understanding and again i tried i thought about that this morning but i don't have the entire file they answered the complaint in the complaint in paragraph says jurisdiction is based on complete diversity of the so ship now that means that the plaintiffs jeremy rudin and liberty northwest are citizens or were incorporated in different states now to specify which is which and paragraph there is not an allegation although the parties agreed on that seventy five thousand dollars or that says resident of belgrade and not citizen i think the appropriate remedy would be to remain  whole point of the complaint and this is the way i take it to not confuse people although it doesn't seem to be working here is to be very general about the alleged acts and then in discovery the attorneys of course in this case would go to texas and talk to the doctors down there there have been informal exchanges of more information but now on the record the court dismissed the case and what we have is a gentleman that's so rarely injured was not given his therapies his medicine and the tree made it timely fashion the power to deny timely payment for an insurance company has the power to make money he's not going to have a remedy if in fact they're going to say as they did in prior case all those acts occurred way back in ninety three are we going to be here are in two thousand and eight in a case where they say we might have done some bad things but those occurred back in district court was that it was based on diversity under twenty eight u s c thirteen thirty two because there was complete diversity and then there was a resident  you haven't exhausted your remedies and the montana workers compensation fund reducing your claim through judgment under section of the  injury that could reach final resolution that is impossible in this case there is nothing we could bring to the workers compensation court he will require ongoing treatment the rest of his life and if they d compromised and therefore cannot be released and you will get it until the day he does all of those things are hard of adjustment once you've got there then you can say aha but there were things that you held back  dismissed saying each one of those things at mit's that he's permanently disabled and everything in the past isn't paid and they come in and say it's all true we have no dispute you have no jurisdiction in court and the workers compensation court has no twenty percent less direct which has nothing to do with the original benefit and it has nothing to do with that state's it is next extra think you can get into the workers compensation session it's not ordering the payment of the medicine essentially all the care we've given in the past you were entitled to and now we can challenge whether they gave it appropriately but they're not going to agree to that kind of settlement because now that starts the ability to bring them and make them accountable for  allegation in the complaint that a dispute over payment of benefits under the montana worker's compensation act has been the subject of litigation through judgment before the montana workers compensation court this is true he has admitted that there is no judgment before the workers compensation so what we do have is i want to deal first with the representations that there is no such thing as a judgment or that he could not get a judgment he could not if you are you could file a petition in two that because we have a system in montana that deals with workers compensation benefits there is an exclusive court with rest those issues and quite frankly the workers compensation system in the workers compensation act from any potential co what you want there is no breach of contract claim that's viable the second one is a little more difficult although in the original connor case which i have the respondent elect has been representing them there is now clearly a rule in montana montana rule because there was no determination by the workers compensation court that there was a denial of benefits or improper conduct so the case was dismissed the workers compensation court and get your judgment which is what grounds should after the settlement could not because it wasn't reduced to a settlement now the next one is the brewing case which was also addressed earlier today and it brewington the court stated outright that a third party bad faith claim based upon improper adjusting or handling could not be brought prior to settlement or judgement whether based on statute or the common law now and growing ten they combined then both statutory and common law back fifty says you must have a said that for statute limitations purposes both statutory and common law bad faith claims accrue when the workers compensation court enters a judgment ordering the insurer to pay for a previously denied benefit the same is true in the connection with the penalty because in the brewington case they could proceed to the workers compensation court he got his judgment which included twenty percent penalty and that was allowed to proceed part of that faith case because it had been reduced to a judgment now in this case there is no judgment and i've already read from the response brief that he has agreed that he has not stated before the workers compensation court he argues that he cast i respectfully disagree that's what that worker's compensation courts for he can file a petition and say yes to as i alleged in my complaint which you did in this case at paragraph six that liberty northwest has never expressed we refused to provide any benefits we've paid all of benefits all along now if the claim was we pay that late then he goes to workers compensation court and under thirty nine that's seventy one that's two nine zero seven says there was an unreasonable delay the judgment comes down there's judgment and there's no settlement and until those regular a judgment or a settlement and then his bad faith claims are premature the statute hasn't begun to run yet until he accomplishes closed two things don't we don't have a settlement approved by the department of labor and we don't have a judgment for the workers compensation court awarding a previously denied benefit and under the line of cases addressed in the car to station clearly the motion to dismiss that was drafted  fact i think that it's important that we keep in mind the fact that workers compensation claims and the workers compensation system is different and  appellant in that situation argued that the courts should look outside of workers compensation in cases like you addressed in a previous argument the really cases and such and such and might have the supreme court specifically rejected that and said in the context of must have either a judgment or a settlement and in this case we have neither with that in mind your honor and for the questions and thank you then we would respectfully request the court when the insurers which says when the insurer began to make the payments that's when the statute and they're talking about attorney steve that were denied that's when the statute of limitations began to run now in that case they could have gone to the current court and got a twenty percent penalty on those insurance payments of the attorneys these payments because they were being made but again that's think that twenty percent penalty in the work comp system is distinct from the cruel and bri those in the court have been for the penalty brought to the workers compensation court but weren't all the insurer asked to do is to lay payment to violate the statute and if they refused to enter into a settlement and keep the court from