Legal Opinion

Marcott v. Louisiana Pacific Corp.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1996No. 95-015PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gray

Bruce Marcott appeals from the portion of the judgment entered by the Workers’ Compensation Court which denied his request for the statutory penalty and attorney fees. We affirm.

We address the following issues on appeal:

1. Does substantial evidence support the Workers’ Compensation Court’s finding that Louisiana Pacific Corporation’s denial of Marcott’s claim was reasonable?

2. Did the Workers’ Compensation Court err as a matter of law in refusing to apply “the Holton rule”?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Bruce Marcott worked for Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LP) as head mechanic at its…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Dumont v. Wickens Bros. Construction Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Stordalen v. Ricci's Food FarmMontana Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Lovell v. State Compensation Mutual Insurance FundMontana Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Holton v. F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Wise v. PerkinsMontana Supreme Court · 1983

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. S.L.H. v. State Compensation Mutual Insurance FundMontana Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Murer v. State Compensation Mutual Insurance FundMontana Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Stewart v. Liberty Northwest InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Marcott v. Louisiana Pacific Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Murer v. State Compensation Mutual Insurance FundMontana Supreme Court · 1997

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API