Madill v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

specially concurring.

I concur with the majority opinion in order to respond to the dissenting opinion without unnecessarily cluttering this Court’s decision.

It is difficult for me to understand the reason for the dissent or the point that it makes.

The author agrees that the Department’s hearing examiner erred when he concluded that, even if the other elements of § 39-71-612, MCA (1979), are satisfied, an award of attorney fees is discretionary.

The author agrees that the Workers’ Compensation Court erred when it concluded that § -612 did not apply to settlements.

Certainly the dissent does not…