This morning I attended the Montana Supreme Court oral arguments for a very important case called Satterlee v. Lumberman's Mutual. In Satterlee, the plaintiffs have asked the Court to throw out a statute that prohibits a person from receiving permanent total disability payments after a worker is eligible for retirement benefits, such as Social Security (MCA § 39-71-710).
Two years ago, the Workers’ Compensation Court ruled against the plaintiffs and upheld the law as passed by the legislature. If the case is decided in favor of the plaintiffs/appellants, the Old Fund, which was established to compensate injuries prior to 1990, could take a hit of up to $130 million, and the new State Fund could pay out $163 million, including retroactive payments to claimants whose benefits stopped when they turned 65. These new costs would lead to increased premium costs for companies that currently pay into the system.
The Montana Chamber filed an amicus brief in this important case to stress how a ruling for Satterlee is not a ruling against insurers, it's a ruling against the people that pay for work comp premiums. We already have the 2nd highest work comp premiums in the country, and a bad decision in this case would undoubtedly send us straight up to #1. It doesn't make much sense to allow people to collect work comp when they are retired from the workforce. To read the amicus brief, click here.
The presentations by both parties were well prepared, but nothing earth-shattering. The arguments from both sides have been fairly well spelled out in the briefs. The plaintiffs main argument is that people who are under the age of 65 can collect permanent total disability (PTD) work comp benefits if they are totally disabled, but someone over 65 cannot. Therefore, they argue, it violates Montana's equal protection laws because similarly situated people are being treated differently solely because of age. The defense's rebuttal is that the work comp system was never intended to be a pension program, the cost to the system would be detrimental, and it would have severely negative economic consequences if decided in the plaintiff's favor.
The most interesting part of oral argument is the fact that individual justices can interrupt the presenting party to ask questions. In this case, all seven justices had at least one question. Justice Nelson had the most at five. Although it's not that scientific, it's often possible to gage an individual justice's initial take on a case just by the kind of question he or she asks. For example, Justice Morris asked a somewhat confrontational and pointed question of the defense/appellee side at the start of his presentation. I can't say for sure, but it seemed like Justice Morris was more sympathetic to the plaintiff's side.
Many of the other questions seemed like genuine attempts to sort through a legal theory or facts of the case, so I can't really say the case will go one way or another. You're better off renting a crystal ball or something. Additionally, I can't really say when we can expect a decision from the Court either. Could be two months, could be twelve months. It's now totally in their hands, so we will wait patiently and keep you updated.
