Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 39. LABOR · CHAPTER 72. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ACT OF MONTANA (Repealed) · Part 1. General Provisions (Repealed)
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-72-101 (2026)

Repealed

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 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 72
  4. Part 1
  5. 39-72-101 Repealed

TITLE 39. LABOR

CHAPTER 72. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ACT OF MONTANA (Repealed)

Part 1. General Provisions (Repealed)

Repealed

39-72-101. Repealed. Sec. 38, Ch. 416, L. 2005.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 155, L. 1959; R.C.M. 1947, 92-1301; amd. Sec. 84, Ch. 397, L. 1979.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1980–2007 · leading case: Eastman v. Atl. Richfield Co., 777 P.2d 862 (Mont. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eastman v. Atl. Richfield Co., 777 P.2d 862 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 2× “, now §§ 39-72-101 to 714, MCA. In the workers' compensation field, this Court upheld the power of the legislature to enact workers' compensation which replaced common law remedies.”
Henry v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 1999 MT 126, 982 P.2d 456. “In 1959, the Montana Legislature created a statutory remedy for work-related diseases when it enacted the ODA, now codified at §§ 39-72-101 to 714, MCA. ¶15 Consistent with the historical circumstances that gave rise to the two Acts, coverage by each Act was thus dependent upon…”
Torres v. State, 902 P.2d 999 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 2× “What is the effect of Torres' prior claim that her disability was caused or contributed to by the conditions of her employment? ISSUE 1 Montana's Occupational Disease Act is found at §§ 39-72-101 to -714, MCA. The exclusive remedy provision in the Occupational Disease Act is…”
Bremer v. Buerkle, 727 P.2d 529 (Mont. 1986). “If claimant’s allergy is considered to be an injury which occurred in February 1983, then Intermountain Insurance Company is liable under Sections 39-71-101 to -2909, MCA. as it was the insurer at risk at that time.”
Hoehne v. Granite Lumber Co., 615 P.2d 863 (Mont. 1980). “(Sections 39-72-101 et seq., MCA). The swelling of his tendons from the repeated exertions of stacking lumber is not unlike the development of contact dermatitis from repeated exposures to chromate, as in Greger, supra.”
Whittington v. Ramsey Constr. & Fabrication, 744 P.2d 1251 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 2× “As such, Montana law provides him and his family benefits under the Occupational Disease Act, Section 39-72-101 et seq., MCA. His request for Workers’ Compensation benefits under Section 39-71-119, MCA, was properly denied.”
Kessel v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 2007 MT 305, 172 P.3d 599. “DISCUSSION ¶9 Issue: Did the WCC err when it ruled that the two-year statute of limitations provided for at § 39-71-2905, MCA, does not begin to run until after the occupational disease evaluator issues its report? ¶10 Based on Kessel’s January 2001 last working day at Stimson,…”
Hughes v. Dep't of Labor & Indus./State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 833 P.2d 1099 (Mont. 1992). “Hughes), recovery for medical care and wage loss benefits under Montana’s Occupational Disease Act §§ 39-72-101 et seq., MCA. Ms. Hughes appeals.”
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.