Opinion ID: 880034
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was the refusal to provide as much as $100,000 in a lump sum for housing an abuse of discretion?

Text: The Workers' Compensation Court may award lump sums for purchase of housing if, considering the claimant's age and health, such an award would be in her best interests. Belton, 714 P.2d at 150; Polich v. Whalen's O.K. Tire Warehouse (Mont. 1981), 634 P.2d 1162, 1165, 38 St. Rep. 1572, 1575, aff'd on remand, (1983), 203 Mont. 280, 661 P.2d 38; Garmann v. E.R. Fegert Co. (Mont. 1987), 736 P.2d 123, 125, 44 St.Rep. 781, 784. The court noted Dr. Johnson's testimony about claimant's housing needs: 38. Dr. Johnson testified that claimant needs to live in a place where the roads will be reasonably accessible in all weather circumstances so that she (claimant) or ambulance personnel can get her the treatment she needs if she's in a desperate situation. ... However, Dr. Johnson does not want claimant to be exposed to the city on a daily basis and prefers claimant live in a rural surrounding . .. Claimant should also have telephone access to medical assistance ... The court had no evidence as to the cost of appropriate housing. The claimant's real estate broker testified about four specific properties that fit the claimant's needs but also were properties large enough to run the excavation business and store the backhoe and equipment. These prices ranged from $89,500 to $105,000. The witness had no idea what appropriate housing without the business aspects might cost except to say it probably would cost at least $75,000. It is the claimant's burden to introduce evidence substantial enough to justify a lump sum. Belton, 714 P.2d at 150; Garmann, 736 P.2d at 125. The Workers' Compensation Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify a lump sum award for the backhoe excavation business; it also concluded that claimant's evidence included costs for a house large enough to operate the backhoe excavation business. Despite the extremely pressing nature of Ms. Daniels' condition it had no evidence on which to base a lump sum for appropriate housing. To award the $100,000 would be to waste some portion of Ms. Daniels' rightful benefits. The denial of a lump sum for housing, considering the nature of the evidence and the court's invitation to reconsider the request on more appropriate evidence, is not an abuse of discretion. Affirmed. TURNAGE, C.J., and WEBER, GULBRANDSON, SHEEHY, HUNT and McDONOUGH, JJ., concur.