33-22-111, MCA

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

[1983] Grooms v. Ponderosa Inn, State Fund, and Department of Labor and Industry, 283 Mont. 459, 942 P.2d 699 (1997) Supreme Court affirmed WCC's conclusion that the medical panel examination required by section 39-72-602(2)(a), MCA, to establish an occupational disease claim does not deny claimant her right to select a treating physician pursuant to section 33-22-111, MCA. The right to select a physician is limited to selection of a treating physician; examinations by panel physicians are in the nature of independent medical examinations used only for the purpose of assessing occupational disease status. Claimant is not required to undergo treatment with the physician, only examination if she wants to pursue an OD claim.

[1991] Heisler v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 282 Mont. 270, 937 P.2d 45 (1997) Where 1991 statute appeared to grant claimant an absolute right to chose his own physician, and 1993 regulation set out at ARM 24.29.1511 prohibited him from changing physicians without prior approval of his insurer (State Fund), WCC correctly recognized that statutory scheme excluded State Fund. This exclusion, however, violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection because it granted freedom to chose physician only to claimants insured by Plan 2 insurers. A policy of discriminating between injured workers based solely on which insurance plan covers them is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
 
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS
[1983] Grooms v. Ponderosa Inn and State Fund [7/16/96] 1996 MTWCC 51 (WCC No. 9603-7523) The medical panel examination required by section 39-72-602(2)(a), MCA, to establish an occupational disease claim does not deny claimant her right to select a treating physician pursuant to section 33-22-111, MCA. The right to select a physician is limited to selection of a treating physician; examinations by panel physicians are in the nature of independent medical examinations used only for the purpose of assessing occupational disease status. Claimant is not required to undergo treatment with the physician, only examination if she wants to pursue an OD claim. [Note: WCC was affirmed on this ground in Grooms v. Ponderosa Inn, 283 Mont. 459, 942 P.2d 699 (1997).]