Court Opinion

ID: 9511731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:07:27.857612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:08.494887
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WARNER
concurring and dissenting.
¶50 I concur with the result of the Court’s opinion, but not with much of what is said therein.
¶51 As noted by the Court at ¶ 26, the Workers’ petition did not demand a judgment concerning the applicability of workers’ compensation statutes to a particular claim for benefits. The Workers sought a declaratory judgment only. Section 27-8-201, MCA, provides in pertinent part:
Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations ....
¶52 It is clear that the power to issue a declaratory judgment is reserved to courts of record. The WCC is not a court of record. Section *5283-1-102, MCA. Thus, the WCC had no jurisdiction to issue its declaratory judgment and the Court is correct that such judgment must be reversed and this action dismissed.
¶53 However, I do agree with Justice Leaphart that the present action involves “benefits.” Had the WCC issued its opinion in a controversy involving a particular claimant, and not in a declaratory judgment action, it would have had jurisdiction to determine whether the disclosure provisions in §§ 39-71-604(3) and 50-16-527(5), MCA, violated their constitutional rights and to consider and award attorney fees.
¶54 Thus, I concur with the result of this case, but disagree with much of the Court’s rational.