Move workers' compensation court to judicial branch
Summary
HB 516 transfers the workers’ compensation judge and the workers’ compensation court from the executive branch, where the office had been housed in the Department of Labor and Industry for administrative purposes, to the judicial branch. The bill places the court under the supervision and administration of the Montana Supreme Court, while keeping the judge’s core role, qualifications, term length, and compensation structure largely intact. It also creates a dedicated workers’ compensation court fund in the state special revenue fund to pay the court’s salaries and expenses, and requires an annual transfer from the workers’ compensation administration fund to support that new account.
The bill also makes transition provisions to preserve existing rights, contracts, proceedings, records, and property during the move, and directs the code commissioner to renumber and conform related statutes in Title 3 and Title 39. In addition, it updates the judges’ retirement statute so the workers’ compensation judge generally joins the Montana judges’ retirement system, but allows the current judge to make a one-time written election to remain in the public employees’ retirement system if the election is made by October 1, 2025. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 516 changes the administrative placement of the workers’ compensation court and amends sections of the Montana Code Annotated governing judicial offices, retirement membership, and workers’ compensation funding. It shifts operational oversight and payment of court expenses to the Supreme Court, creates a new special revenue account for the court, and requires the Department of Labor and Industry to transfer funds annually from the workers’ compensation administration fund. The bill also requires conforming code changes and preserves continuity for pending matters, contracts, and personnel during the transition.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and moved through the Legislature with strong margins, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee votes in several stages and large floor majorities in both chambers. The final enactment and lack of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials suggest limited public controversy in the available record. Overall, the sentiment reflected in the votes is favorable toward the organizational transfer and funding changes.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are institutional and fiscal rather than policy-driven. The transfer of the workers’ compensation court from the executive branch to the judicial branch raises questions about separation of functions, administrative control, and how court operations should be funded. The retirement provision for the current workers’ compensation judge is another specific issue, since it creates a one-time election to remain in the existing retirement system rather than moving into the judges’ retirement system. The recorded votes show some opposition on a few floor actions, but the bill still passed comfortably, indicating only limited resistance.