Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-613 (2026)

Regulation Of Attorney Fees -- Forfeiture Of Fee For Noncompliance -- Return Of Fee When Claimant Received Benefits Through Fraud Or Deception

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 39. LABOR

CHAPTER 71. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Part 6. Claims for Benefits

Regulation Of Attorney Fees -- Forfeiture Of Fee For Noncompliance -- Return Of Fee When Claimant Received Benefits Through Fraud Or Deception

39-71-613. Regulation of attorney fees -- forfeiture of fee for noncompliance -- return of fee when claimant received benefits through fraud or deception. (1) When an attorney represents or acts on behalf of a claimant or any other party on any workers' compensation claim, the attorney shall submit to the department a contract of employment, on a form provided by the department, stating specifically the terms of the fee arrangement between the attorney and the claimant.

(2) The department may regulate the amount of the attorney fees in any workers' compensation case. In regulating the amount of the fees, the department shall consider:

(a) the benefits the claimant gained due to the efforts of the attorney;

(b) the time the attorney was required to spend on the case;

(c) the complexity of the case; and

(d) any other relevant matter the department may consider appropriate.

(3) An attorney who violates a provision of this section, a rule adopted under this section, or an order fixing attorney fees under this section forfeits the right to any fees that the attorney collected or was entitled to collect.

(4) If, after an attorney receives attorney fees and costs assessed against an insurer, the claimant is convicted of having obtained benefits through fraud or deception, the attorney fees and costs for obtaining the benefits must be returned to the insurer by the attorney.

(5) (a) A dispute concerning the forfeiture or return of attorney fees is considered a dispute for which the workers' compensation court has original jurisdiction and is not subject to mediation or a contested case hearing.

(b) The parties to a dispute referred to in subsection (5)(a) may voluntarily request a mediator appointed by the department and proceed to nonbinding mediation.

History: En. 92-619 by Sec. 1, Ch. 402, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 92-619; amd. Sec. 18, Ch. 464, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 64, Ch. 613, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 235, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 18, Ch. 442, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 15, Ch. 112, L. 2009.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1979–2011 · leading case: Pinnow v. Montana State Fund, 2007 MT 332 (Mont. 2007).
Pinnow v. Montana State Fund, 2007 MT 332 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 48× “¶32 As for § 39-71-613, MCA, this statute provides, in its entirety, as follows: (1) When an attorney represents or acts on behalf of a claimant or any other party on any workers’ compensation claim, the attorney shall submit to the department a contract of employment, on a form…”
Wight v. Hughes Livestock Co., Inc., 664 P.2d 303 (Mont. 1983). · cites it 42× “" Section 39-71-613, MCA: "(1) When an attorney represents or acts on behalf of a claimant or any other party on any workers' compensation claim, the attorney shall submit to the division a contract of employment stating specifically the terms of the fee arrangement between the…”
Burris v. Emp. Rel. div./dept. of Labor, 829 P.2d 639 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 32× “The issues on appeal are whether the Department of Labor and Industry has the authority to regulate attorney fees under § 39-71-613, MCA (1987), and whether *640 § 39-71-613, MCA (1987), is unconstitutional.”
Murer v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 942 P.2d 69 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 4× “Counsel here submitted their fee agreements with the party claimants to the Department as required by § 39-71-613, MCA. These are the fees they sought in their pleadings, pursuant to applicable statutes, through the first two appeals to this Court in this litigation.”
Hock v. Lienco Cedar Prods., 634 P.2d 1174 (Mont. 1981). · cites it 5× “Section 39-71-613, MCA, and Rule 24.29.3801, ARM, set maximum amounts of fees and simply require such filing.”
Lockhart v. New Hampshire Ins., 1999 MT 205 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 4× “¶ 15 The attorney retainer agreement, drafted by the Department of Labor and Industry pursuant to § 39-71-613, MCA, allows for an attorney's contingency fee to be taken from "the amount of additional compensation payments the claimant receives due to the efforts of the attorney.”
Catteyson v. Falls Mobile Home Ctr., Inc., 599 P.2d 341 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 3× “There is also nothing to indicate that the compensation judge deviated from the formula set out in section 39-71-613 MCA. The judgment of the Workers’ Compensation Court is affirmed.”
Hartford v. Young, 782 P.2d 365 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 31× “The hearing examiner deducted $1,000 from the attorney fees after determining that Hartford violated section 39-71-613, MCA, and section 24.29.”
Miller v. Frasure, 809 P.2d 1257 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 5× “” Section 39-71-613, MCA (1983). The corresponding administrative rule, A.”
Greger v. United Prestress, Inc., 590 P.2d 1121 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 6× “1947, now section 39-71-613 MCA? The issue raised in the instant case requiring a determination under the facts set forth of the Occupational Disease Act of 1959 is an issue of first impression as far as Montana is concerned.”
Flynn v. Montana State Fund, 2011 MT 300 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 2× “The potential for fraudulent or wrongful behavior currently exists. Montana law addresses unreasonable denial of claims by an insurer, §§39-71-611, 39-71-612(2), MCA; forfeiture of fees by an attorney who violates the workers’ compensation statutes or rules, § 39-71-613(3), MCA;…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-613(2): 2 cases
Wight v. Hughes Livestock Co., Inc., 664 P.2d 303 (Mont. 1983). “" Section 39-71-613, MCA: "(1) When an attorney represents or acts on behalf of a claimant or any other party on any workers' compensation claim, the attorney shall submit to the division a contract of employment stating specifically the terms of the fee arrangement between the…”
Hartford v. Young, 782 P.2d 365 (Mont. 1989). “The hearing examiner deducted $1,000 from the attorney fees after determining that Hartford violated section 39-71-613, MCA, and section 24.29.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-613(3): 4 cases
Pinnow v. Montana State Fund, 2007 MT 332 (Mont. 2007). “¶32 As for § 39-71-613, MCA, this statute provides, in its entirety, as follows: (1) When an attorney represents or acts on behalf of a claimant or any other party on any workers’ compensation claim, the attorney shall submit to the department a contract of employment, on a form…”
Hock v. Lienco Cedar Prods., 634 P.2d 1174 (Mont. 1981). “Section 39-71-613, MCA, and Rule 24.29.3801, ARM, set maximum amounts of fees and simply require such filing.”
Hartford v. Young, 782 P.2d 365 (Mont. 1989). “The hearing examiner deducted $1,000 from the attorney fees after determining that Hartford violated section 39-71-613, MCA, and section 24.29.”
Flynn v. Montana State Fund, 2011 MT 300 (Mont. 2011). “The potential for fraudulent or wrongful behavior currently exists. Montana law addresses unreasonable denial of claims by an insurer, §§39-71-611, 39-71-612(2), MCA; forfeiture of fees by an attorney who violates the workers’ compensation statutes or rules, § 39-71-613(3), MCA;…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-613(4): 1 case
Pinnow v. Montana State Fund, 2007 MT 332 (Mont. 2007). “¶32 As for § 39-71-613, MCA, this statute provides, in its entirety, as follows: (1) When an attorney represents or acts on behalf of a claimant or any other party on any workers’ compensation claim, the attorney shall submit to the department a contract of employment, on a form…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-613(5): 1 case
Pinnow v. Montana State Fund, 2007 MT 332 (Mont. 2007). “¶32 As for § 39-71-613, MCA, this statute provides, in its entirety, as follows: (1) When an attorney represents or acts on behalf of a claimant or any other party on any workers’ compensation claim, the attorney shall submit to the department a contract of employment, on a form…”
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.