RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY LAW

"15 The law was amended so that the communal "Big Sky Colony," a Hutterite religious corporation, would be bound by the Act.16 Prior to the amendment, state compensation authorities had not enforced the law against the Colony because it did not pay wages to its members when they undertook labor jobs among the general community.17 The Colony asserted that the amendment was constitutionally flawed as violative of the constitutional precepts of (1) free exercise of religion, (2) forbidden establishment of religion, and (3) equal protection of the laws.18 The trial court agreed, granting summary judgment to the religious group; the Montana Supreme Court reversed and ruled that the state, rather, was entitled to summary judgment.19 The court noted with approval that "[cjourts routinely have rejected free exercise challenges to compelled participation by religious organizations in a wide variety of social welfare programs. The judge also awarded partial disability, erroneously in light of the worker's incongruous mid-litigation return to work with modified duties and at lower wages.26 A year later, after having failed initially to appeal, the employer petitioned and successfully persuaded the appeal board and appellate court to suspend benefits.27 The court rejected a res judicata argument,28 exhibiting a policy preference for disqualifying undocumented workers from wage-loss benefits whenever they are able to work.\n"217 This settlement was, in any event, approved by the Idaho Industrial Commission.218 More than a year later, Morris, now with new counsel, sought to have the settlement reviewed by the commission.