IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2016 MTWCC 15
WCC No. 2016-3728. MICAH R. HANDY vs. MONTANA STATE FUND.
Summary: Petitioner sought rescission of his settlement, arguing: (1) he did not understand he was fully settling his claim because he did not read the settlement agreement; (2) he could not have understood the settlement agreement if he had read it; (3) he was under economic duress; and (4) the settlement is unconscionable. Respondent maintains that Petitioner’s claim is time-barred and that he has not met his burden of proof.
Held: Petitioner’s claim is not time-barred. However, Petitioner has presented no viable grounds on which to rescind the settlement. Therefore, the settlement agreement remains in effect.
Judgment: Handy’s claim is not time-barred. Handy has not proven a legal basis for rescinding the settlement agreement.