national standard in Montana

2024Howlett, ¶ 18 (citing Norris v. Fritz, 2012 MT 27, ¶ 44 , 364 Mont. 63 , 270 P.3d 79 ). ¶15 Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

2024Howlett, ¶ 18 (citing Norris v. Fritz, 2012 MT 27, ¶ 44 , 364 Mont. 63 , 270 P.3d 79 ). ¶15 Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

1992Martel v. Montana Power Company (1988), 231 Mont. 96 , 752 P.2d 140 .... ...

1992Martel v. Montana Power Company (1988), 231 Mont. 96 , 752 P.2d 140 .... ...

2023Radiological Assocs., P.C., 2012 MT 260 , ¶¶ 18 and 23-24, 367 Mont. 21 , 289 P.3d 131 (internal citations omitted); Gratton, 169 Mont. at 189-90 , 545 P.2d at 672-73 .21 As to board-certified specialists in a particular field or practice of medicine, the applicable standard of care is the national standard of care applicable to all such specialists in the provision of the subject specialized care throughout the United States, without regard for lesser geographic limitations.

2023Radiological Assocs., P.C., 2012 MT 260 , ¶¶ 18 and 23-24, 367 Mont. 21 , 289 P.3d 131 (internal citations omitted); Gratton, 169 Mont. at 189-90 , 545 P.2d at 672-73 .21 As to board-certified specialists in a particular field or practice of medicine, the applicable standard of care is the national standard of care applicable to all such specialists in the provision of the subject specialized care throughout the United States, without regard for lesser geographic limitations.

2023Radiological Assocs., P.C., 2012 MT 260 , ¶¶ 18 and 23-24, 367 Mont. 21 , 289 P.3d 131 (internal citations omitted); Gratton, 169 Mont. at 189-90 , 545 P.2d at 672-73 .21 As to board-certified specialists in a particular field or practice of medicine, the applicable standard of care is the national standard of care applicable to all such specialists in the provision of the subject specialized care throughout the United States, without regard for lesser geographic limitations.

2023Radiological Assocs., P.C., 2012 MT 260 , ¶¶ 18 and 23-24, 367 Mont. 21 , 289 P.3d 131 (internal citations omitted); Gratton, 169 Mont. at 189-90 , 545 P.2d at 672-73 .21 As to board-certified specialists in a particular field or practice of medicine, the applicable standard of care is the national standard of care applicable to all such specialists in the provision of the subject specialized care throughout the United States, without regard for lesser geographic limitations.

2003To that degree, the court held that state workers’ safety laws were preempted expressly.” Thornock, 229 Mont. at 73 , 745 P.2d at 328 . ¶53 In Ohio Manufacturers’ Association , the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether the City of Akron’s “Right to Know” ordinance, regulating hazardous and toxic substances in the workplace, was preempted by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1910 .

2003To that degree, the court held that state workers’ safety laws were preempted expressly.” Thornock, 229 Mont. at 73 , 745 P.2d at 328 . ¶53 In Ohio Manufacturers’ Association , the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether the City of Akron’s “Right to Know” ordinance, regulating hazardous and toxic substances in the workplace, was preempted by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1910 .

2003Hughey, 774 F.2d at 594-98. ¶52 In another example, this Court relied on the case of Ohio Manufacturers’ Association v. City of Akron (6th Cir. 1986), 801 F.2d 824 , when making the overly broad conclusion that “OSHA was intended to establish a national standard ....

2003Furthermore, we agree with the trial court to the extent that express preemption, by definition, must be clearly manifested, especially when local health and safety provisions are endangered.” Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, 801 F.2d at 831 . ¶55 Finally, this Court stated in Thornock that, “Thornock must *242 persuade this Court that federal powers granted in OSHA do not relieve the State of its burden to inspect dangerous work sites.” Thornock, 229 Mont. at 73 , 745 P.2d at 328 .

2002Moreover, “a state court always is responsible for the law of its state before deciding whether the state falls short of a national standard, so that no federal issue is properly reached when the state’s law protects the claimed right.” Johnson, 221 Mont. at 514 , 719 P.2d at 1255 (quoting Hans A. Linde, E Pluribus — Constitutional Theory and State Courts, 18 Ga.L.Rev. 165, 178 (1984)).

2002Moreover, “a state court always is responsible for the law of its state before deciding whether the state falls short of a national standard, so that no federal issue is properly reached when the state’s law protects the claimed right.” Johnson, 221 Mont. at 514 , 719 P.2d at 1255 (quoting Hans A. Linde, E Pluribus — Constitutional Theory and State Courts, 18 Ga.L.Rev. 165, 178 (1984)).

1990In Glover v. Ballhagen (1988), 232 Mont. 427 , 756 P.2d 1166 , this Court answered a certified question posed by the Federal District Court of Montana again with respect to the standard of care applicable to national board-certified specialists.

1990In Glover v. Ballhagen (1988), 232 Mont. 427 , 756 P.2d 1166 , this Court answered a certified question posed by the Federal District Court of Montana again with respect to the standard of care applicable to national board-certified specialists.

1990Accordingly, we hold that a non-board-certified general practitioner is held to the standard of care of a “reasonably competent general practitioner acting in the same or similar community in the United States in the same or similar circumstances.” See, Shilkret v. *93 Annapolis Emergency Hospital Association (1975), 276 Md. 187 , 349 A.2d 245 .

1990Accordingly, we hold that a non-board-certified general practitioner is held to the standard of care of a “reasonably competent general practitioner acting in the same or similar community in the United States in the same or similar circumstances.” See, Shilkret v. *93 Annapolis Emergency Hospital Association (1975), 276 Md. 187 , 349 A.2d 245 .

1981The Court notes, “Congress has determined that a youthful military is essential to the national defense; it is not for States to interfere with that goal by lessening the incentive to retire created by the military retirement system.” McCarty, 101 S.Ct. at 2742 , 69 L.Ed.2d at 607 .

1981The Court notes, “Congress has determined that a youthful military is essential to the national defense; it is not for States to interfere with that goal by lessening the incentive to retire created by the military retirement system.” McCarty, 101 S.Ct. at 2742 , 69 L.Ed.2d at 607 .