Opinion ID: 886211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Did the WCC err in affirming the penalty assessments issued by the UEF?

Text: ¶ 59 Lastly, we affirm the WCC decision regarding the penalty assessments issued by the UEF. We agree with the WCC that Dynamics failed to produce the necessary records to justify a different penalty calculation. The WCC gave the Client Companies and Dynamics a post-decision opportunity to provide records or calculations to support a lower penalty. Unfortunately, Dynamics failed, yet again, to submit a documentary basis for recalculation of the penalties. ¶ 60 The results here are unfortunate. Thirteen companies relied on the knowledge and integrity of an employee leasing company that failed to determine what Montana's workers' compensation laws required before commencing operations here. This omission is compounded by the fact that this company had encountered this same problem in other states. Subsequently, while it professed to having obtained UEF-acceptable insurance, it failed to provide the evidence that would have satisfied the UEF, and failed to support its contention that the penalty calculation was erroneous. ¶ 61 For the reasons stated in this Opinion, we affirm the WCC's Decision and Order on Appeal in this matter. We Concur: KARLA M. GRAY, C.J., JAMES C. NELSON, W. WILLIAM LEAPHART, and JIM RICE, JJ.