Case Discussed: Coles v. Seven Eleven Stores,
217 Mont. 343, 704 P.2d 1048 (1985)

Ness v. Anaconda Minerals Co., 279 Mont. 472, 929 P.2d 205 (1996) Insurer’s termination of temporary total disability benefits was proper on the date by which all four Coles requirements had been satisfied. Where the insurer’s notice of intent to reduce benefits was given before it received and notified claimant of a physician’s report regarding claimant’s ability to return to work, the insurer was not required to issue another notice of intent to terminate benefits; termination was proper on the date claimant agreed he received notice of the doctor’s report.

Loss v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. [3/15/96] 1997 MTWCC 24 The Court declines to extend the requirements of Coles v. Seven Eleven Stores, 217 Mont. 343, 704 P.2d 1048 (1985), adopted by the Supreme Court in Wood v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 248 Mont. 26, 30, 808 P.2d 502, 505 (1991), to mandate continuing benefits on the argument a doctor's release to return to work without restrictions was allegedly erroneous. The Coles requirements are procedural, not substantive, except for the maximum medical healing determination. Where the MMI determination is not contested, the Court will not retrospectively reexamine the correctness of the physician's opinions upon which the termination of TTD was based.

Ness v. Anaconda Minerals Co. [2/3/95] 1995 MTWCC 10 Based on the holding of Ness v. Anaconda Minerals Co., 257 Mont. 335, 849 P.2d 1021 (1993) (Ness I), claimant is entitled only to extension of temporary total disability benefits through the date the insurer satisfied the fourth element of Coles v. Seven Eleven Stores, 217 Mont. 343, 704 P.2d 1048 (1985), providing him notice of a physician’s report determining his ability to work. Note: this decision was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court in Ness v. Anaconda Minerals Co., 279 Mont. 472, 929 P.2d 205 (1996) (Ness II).