Title: LUNT v DIV OF WORKMEN S COMPENSAT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12900
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 1975

No. 12900 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A GENE D. LUNT, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, DIVISION O F WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R AND INDUSTRY O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth J u d i c i a l Dis t r i c e , Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Harris, Jackson and Utick, Helena, Montana Andrew J. Utick argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: William T. Kelly argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: June 17, 1975 Decided : .)?lh! 3 0 19'75 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. This appeal by t h e Division of workmen's Compensation i s brought from the denial of a motion f o r change of venue from Yellowstone County t o Lewis and Clark County. P l a i n t i f f Gene D. Lunt f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandate t o compel the Division t o s e t a hearing on h i s claim f o r compensation benefits. Neither the merits of the claim f o r compensation nor the merits of the p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of mandamus a r e before t h i s Court on t h i s appeal. In f a c t , those considera- tions have been rendered moot by t h e settlement of the claim be- tween p l a i n t i f f and h i s employer's insurer. However, since the settlement occurred a f t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h e mandamus action, the issue of attorney fees remains preserving the venue question f o r t h i s c o u r t ' s consideration. The proper forum t o bring an action f o r w r i t of mandate is governed by section 93-2902, R.C.M. 1947, which provides i n pertinent part: I ' Actions f o r the following causes must be t r i e d i n the county where the cause, o r some part thereof, arose * * * "* * fr "2. Against a public o f f i c e r , o r person specially appointed t o execute h i s duties, f o r an a c t done by him i n v i r t u e of h i s o f f i c e ; o r against a person who, by h i s command o r i n h i s a i d , does anything touching the d u t i e s of such officer. 11 The Division argues section 93-2902 i s not controlling here since t h e defendant named i n the mandamus action i s the 11 Division of Workmen's Compensation, Department o f Labor and Industry of the S t a t e of Montana1' without mention of any of the "public officers1' individually associated with the Division. However, t h e Division can a c t only through i t s public o f f i c e r s and employees, and no meaningful d i s t i n c t i o n can be drawn be- tween the sum of the p a r t s and the whole f o r purposes of t h i s venue s t a t u t e . W e hold t h e Division i s a "public officer" within the meaning of section 93-2902. See: Ebenezer Society v. Minne- sota S t a t e Board of Health, (Minn. 1974), 223 N.W.2d 385 and cases c i t e d therein f o r similar holdings under p a r a l l e l venue s t a t u t e s . A d i s t r i c t court i s required t o grant a motion f o r change of venue when the county designated i n the complaint i s not the proper county. Section 93-2906, R.C.M. 1947; Johnson v. Clark, 131 Mont. 454, 311 P.2d 772. The language of section 93-2902 indi- cates t h a t t h e proper county is the "county where the cause, o r some part thereof, arose." The cause of t h i s mandamus action, a s s e t f o r t h i n the p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t , i s "the wrongful, wanton, a r b i t r a r y and discriminatory * * * neglecting and f a i l i n g t o s e t lai in tiff's case down f o r hearing. I I The p e t i t i o n f o r the w r i t a s s e r t s t h a t it i s t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' s responsibility t o s e t a hearing a s required by section 92-821, R.C.14. 1947. The Division i s headquartered i n Lewis and Clark County, a s evidenced by the a f f i d a v i t of t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' s adminis- t r a t o r and by the exhibits showing t h a t notice of hearings i s sent from Lewis and Clark County. It i s apparent t h a t the alleged f a i l u r e t o s e t a hearing involves only the function of the Division's offices i n Lewis and Clark County. Accordingly, the cause arose i n Lewis and Clark County and, pursuant t o section 93-2902 must be t r i e d there. This holding i s consistent with Gildroy v. Anderson, 159 Mont. 325, 497 P.2d 688, and State ex r e l . Fulton v. D i s t r i c t Court, 139 Mont. 573, 366 P.2d 435, although n e i t h e r i s s u f f i c i e n t l y analogous t o be controlling here. Any portions of Montana-Dakota U t i l i t i e s Co. v. Public Service Commission, 1 1 1 Mont. 78, 107 P.2d 533, inconsistent with t h i s opinion a r e hereby expressly overruled. Operating under similar venue s t a t u t e s , t h e Supreme Court of Oklahoma expressed it well when it held i n State ex r e l . S t a t e Dry cleanersr Board v. D i s t r i c t Court, (Okla.1959), 340 P.2d 939, "* fc * Since the cause of action a r i s e s where the neglect o r r e f u s a l on the p a r t of the public o f f i c i a l takes place, it might be argued t h a t t h e alleged neglect i n t h i s case took place i n Nowata County where t h e Board f a i l e d t o hold the hearing. However, we a r e of t h e opinion t h a t i n an action f o r mandamus the cause of action a r i s e s i n the county where t h e public o f f i c i a l o f f i c i a l l y re- sides. It i s a t t h a t place where he o f f i c i a l l y refuses t o a c t o r neglects t o a c t . 11 See also: S t a t e ex r e l . Department of Corrections v. Brock, Accordingly, the denial of the motion f o r change of venue t o Lewis and Clark County is reversed. J u s t i c e W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e