Synek v. State Compensation Mutual Insurance Fund
Montana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gray
Violet Synek (Synek) appeals from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Court affirming the decision of the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (Department) which denied her claim for payment for past and continuing chiropractic treatments, penalty and attorney’s fees. We affirm.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Did the Workers’ Compensation Court err in affirming the Department’s determination that Synek’s chiropractic treatments were not compensable?
2. Were Synek’s procedural due process rights violated by the Department’s procedures?
In the course of Synek’s employment with…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Buckman v. Montana Deaconess HospitalMontana Supreme Court · 1986
- State Compensation Mutual Insurance Fund v. LoggingMontana Supreme Court · 1992
- Carmichael v. Workers' Compensation CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1988
- Weis v. Division of Workers' Compensation of the Department of Labor & IndustryMontana Supreme Court · 1988
- Capers v. FlauttCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Montana Power Co. v. Montana Public Service CommissionMontana Supreme Court · 2001
- Qwest Corp. v. Montana Department of Public Service RegulationMontana Supreme Court · 2007
- C. Loney Concrete Construction, Inc. v. Employment Relations DivisionMontana Supreme Court · 1998
- Dahl v. Uninsured Employers' FundMontana Supreme Court · 1999
- Dahl v. Uninsured Employers' FundMontana Supreme Court · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.