Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 39. LABOR · CHAPTER 71. WORKERS' COMPENSATION · Part 6. Claims for Benefits
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-601 (2026)

Statute Of Limitation On Presentment Of Claim -- Waiver

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 39
  3. CHAPTER 71
  4. Part 6
  5. 39-71-601 Statute of limitation on presentment of claim -- waiver

TITLE 39. LABOR

CHAPTER 71. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Part 6. Claims for Benefits

Statute Of Limitation On Presentment Of Claim -- Waiver

39-71-601. Statute of limitation on presentment of claim -- waiver. (1) Except for a claim for benefits for occupational diseases pursuant to subsections (3) and (4), all claims in the case of personal injury or death must be forever barred unless signed by the claimant or the claimant's representative and presented in writing to the employer, the insurer, or the department within 12 months from the date of the happening of the accident, either by the claimant or someone legally authorized to act on the claimant's behalf.

(2) The insurer may waive the time requirement up to an additional 24 months upon a reasonable showing by the claimant of:

(a) lack of knowledge of disability;

(b) latent injury; or

(c) equitable estoppel.

(3) When a claimant seeks benefits for an occupational disease, the claimant's claims for benefits must be in writing, signed by the claimant or the claimant's representative, and presented to the employer, the employer's insurer, or the department within 1 year from the date that the claimant knew or should have known that the claimant's condition resulted from an occupational disease. When a beneficiary seeks benefits under this chapter, claims for death benefits must be presented in writing to the employer, the employer's insurer, or the department within 1 year from the date that the beneficiary knew or should have known that the decedent's death was related to an occupational disease.

(4) Any dispute regarding the statute of limitations for filing time is considered a dispute that, after mediation pursuant to department rules, is subject to jurisdiction of the workers' compensation court.

History: En. Sec. 10, Ch. 96, L. 1915; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 100, L. 1919; re-en. Sec. 2899, R.C.M. 1921; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 34, L. 1935; re-en. Sec. 2899, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 264, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 92-601; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 254, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 64, Ch. 613, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 24, Ch. 619, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 16, Ch. 442, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 23, Ch. 416, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 14, Ch. 112, L. 2009.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases, 1980–2019 · leading case: Bowerman v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 673 P.2d 476 (Mont. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bowerman v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 673 P.2d 476 (Mont. 1983). · cites it 55× “This is an appeal by the claimant Jerry Bowerman from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Court that his claim for compensation is barred by section 39-71-601, MCA (1981). That statute provides: "(1) In cases of personal injury or death, all claims shall be forever barred…”
Wassberg v. Anaconda Copper Co., 697 P.2d 909 (Mont. 1985). · cites it 52× “This is an appeal from an order of the Workers' Compensation Court, holding that the employer-defendant was estopped from asserting the one year statute of limitations provided in section 39-71-601, MCA as a bar to claimant's request for compensation under the Workers'…”
Colmore v. Uninsured Employers Fun, 2005 MT 239 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 19× “¶59 The dissent also attempts to tie the “plain meaning” of § 39-71-520, MCA (1999), to the language contained in § 39-71-601(1), MCA (1999), on the Orr “context in which they reside” theory.”
Hardgrove v. Transp. Ins., 2004 MT 340 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 24× “Compare § 39-72-403, MCA (1983) (§ 39-72-403(3), MCA (1983), repealed 1985), with § 39-71-601, MCA (1983) ("Statute of limitation *1003 on presentment of claim-waiver" with respect to the WCA, amended (1989).”
Solheim v. Tom Davis Ranch, 677 P.2d 1034 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 12× “The claim was timely filed pursuant to section 39-71-601(1), MCA. By letter addressed to claimant and dated June 17, 1981, the claims examiner for the State Compensation Insurance Fund acknowledged the receipt of Solheim's claim for compensation.”
Frost v. Anaconda Co., 645 P.2d 419 (Mont. 1982). · cites it 9× “Section 39-71-601, MCA, establishes a one year statute of limitations for filing such claims.”
Scott v. Util. Line Contractors, 734 P.2d 206 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 18× “Scott had made a “claim” within one year under Section 39-71-601, MCA. A stipulated set of facts was submitted to the court below.”
Weigand v. Anderson-Meyer Drilling Co., 758 P.2d 260 (Mont. 1988). · cites it 77× “The defendant denied Weigand's claim for compensation contending that Weigand did not file a claim within one year as required by § 39-71-601, MCA. The defendant further alleged that Weigand's present difficulties were not the result of his 1982 injury.”
Devlin v. Galusha, Higgins & Galusha, 655 P.2d 979 (Mont. 1982). · cites it 15× “Claimant appeals the June 25, 1982 Worker’s Compensation Court judgment dismissing claimant’s petition on the grounds that she failed to file for compensation within one year from the date of her accident, pursuant to section 39-71-601, MCA. We affirm the judgment of the…”
Barthule v. Karman, 886 P.2d 971 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 7× “Karman relies on § 39-71-601, MCA, which states that “all claims must be forever barred unless .”
Turjan v. Valley View Estates, 901 P.2d 76 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 8× “Appellant raises the following issue on appeal: Is the one-year time limit for filing a written workers’ compensation claim under § 39-71-601, MCA (1985), and the 60-day time limit for giving an employer notice of injury under § 39-71-603, MCA (1985), tolled while claimant is…”
Grenz v. Fire & Cas. of Connecticut, 857 P.2d 730 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 16× “On remand, the hearing examiner determined that Grenz had not filed his new claim within one year after he had stopped working for American Stud in 1985 and, therefore, he had not complied with § 39-71-601, MCA (1983). Thus, the hearing examiner ordered the dismissal of Grenz’…”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-601(1) — 10 cases
Colmore v. Uninsured Employers Fun, 2005 MT 239 (Mont. 2005). “¶59 The dissent also attempts to tie the “plain meaning” of § 39-71-520, MCA (1999), to the language contained in § 39-71-601(1), MCA (1999), on the Orr “context in which they reside” theory.”
Solheim v. Tom Davis Ranch, 677 P.2d 1034 (Mont. 1984). “The claim was timely filed pursuant to section 39-71-601(1), MCA. By letter addressed to claimant and dated June 17, 1981, the claims examiner for the State Compensation Insurance Fund acknowledged the receipt of Solheim's claim for compensation.”
Hardgrove v. Transp. Ins., 2004 MT 340 (Mont. 2004). “Compare § 39-72-403, MCA (1983) (§ 39-72-403(3), MCA (1983), repealed 1985), with § 39-71-601, MCA (1983) ("Statute of limitation *1003 on presentment of claim-waiver" with respect to the WCA, amended (1989).”
Davis v. Jones, 661 P.2d 859 (Mont. 1983).
Turjan v. Valley View Estates, 901 P.2d 76 (Mont. 1995). “Appellant raises the following issue on appeal: Is the one-year time limit for filing a written workers’ compensation claim under § 39-71-601, MCA (1985), and the 60-day time limit for giving an employer notice of injury under § 39-71-603, MCA (1985), tolled while claimant is…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-601(2) — 10 cases
Conn v. Quality Inn, 789 P.2d 1213 (Mont. 1990).
Jaeger v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 645 P.2d 942 (Mont. 1982).
Reil v. Billings Processors, Inc., 746 P.2d 617 (Mont. 1987).
Pinion v. H. C. Smith Constr. Co., 619 P.2d 167 (Mont. 1980).
Tinker v. Montana State Fund, 2009 MT 218 (Mont. 2009).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-601(2)(a) — 1 case
Tinker v. Montana State Fund, 2009 MT 218 (Mont. 2009).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-601(3) — 1 case
Dvorak v. Montana State Fund, 2013 MT 210 (Mont. 2013).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.