Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-72-408 (2026)

Repealed

✓ 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 72. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ACT OF MONTANA (Repealed)

Part 4. Presentment and Payment of Claims Generally (Repealed)

Repealed

39-72-408. Repealed. Sec. 38, Ch. 416, L. 2005.

History: En. Sec. 5, Ch. 155, L. 1959; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 40, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 92-1305; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 368, L. 2001.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1979–2008 · leading case: Stavenjord v. Montana State Fund, 2003 MT 67 (Mont. 2003).
Stavenjord v. Montana State Fund, 2003 MT 67 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 10× “Indeed, the current proximate cause provision for occupational diseases, set forth in § 39-72-408, MCA, and discussed below, is identical to the proximate cause provision contained in the original Occupational Disease Act enacted by the Legislature in 1959.”
Torres v. State, 902 P.2d 999 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 10× “Section 39-72-408, MCA, specifically states that certain diseases do not "arise out of" employment.”
Polk v. Planet Ins., 951 P.2d 1015 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 6× “Under § 39-72-408, MCA: Occupational diseases shall be deemed to arise out of the employment only if: (1) there is a direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease; (2) the disease can be seen to have followed as a…”
Kratovil v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 2008 MT 443 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 10× “It then rendered the following legal conclusions: (1) the 2003 ODA, the law in effect on Kratovil’s last day of work, applied; (2) Kratovil had the *525 burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to ODA benefits; (3) the legal standard for…”
Ridenour v. Equity Supply Co., 665 P.2d 783 (Mont. 1983). · cites it 3× “employment;” section 39-72-408, MCA: “Proximate causation.”
Anderson v. Brinkhoff, 859 P.2d 819 (Colo. 1993). “§ 22-3-7-10 (Burns 1992); Mont.Code Ann. § 39-72-408 (1991); Nev.Rev.”
Hanks v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp., 2002 MT 334 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 6× “" Section 39-72-408, MCA. Hanks, however, has not offered any testimony that her underlying preexisting back disease was incidental to her work at Partners and, therefore, has not established that she suffers from an occupational disease.”
Greger v. United Prestress, Inc., 590 P.2d 1121 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 3× “1947, now section 39-72-408 MCA? 4. Did the Court err by refusing to find that claimant, because .”
Whittington v. Ramsey Constr. & Fabrication, 744 P.2d 1251 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 6× “Section 39-72-408, MCA, says that an occupational disease arises from employment if: (1) there is a direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease; (2) the disease can be seen to have followed as a natural incident…”
Hughes v. Dep't of Labor & Indus./State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 833 P.2d 1099 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 5× “” Section 39-72-408, MCA, defines proximate cause under Montana’s Occupational Disease Act.”
Romero v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 2001 MT 303N (Mont. 2001). · cites it 2× “Schumann diagnosed Romero with respect to the criteria for occupational diseases set forth in § 39-72-408, MCA. Dr. Schumann found that Romero's employment at County Market did not cause her left arm condition.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-72-408(4) — 1 case
Torres v. State, 902 P.2d 999 (Mont. 1995). “Section 39-72-408, MCA, specifically states that certain diseases do not "arise out of" employment.”
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.