Occupational Disease: Causation

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Montana State Fund v. Murray, 2005 MT 97 (No. 04-576) Where claimant alleges an occupational exposure worsened a preexisting condition and led to benefit entitlement, the test for compensability under the Occupational Disease Act is whether occupational factors significantly aggravated the preexisting condition, not whether there was a “substantial” aggravation.
Fellenberg v. Transportation Ins. Co., 2005 MT 90 Although a former employee of W. R. Grace had an injurious condition (asbestosis) that was one hundred percent attributable to his employment, undisputed facts demonstrated that his retirement was not related to his lung disease and he had no intention of returning to work after retirement. In this situation, the Workers’ Compensation Court correctly determined that claimant’s asbestosis did not result in a loss of actual earnings or earnings capability, meaning he was not entitled to permanent total disability benefits, permanent partial disability benefits, or an impairment award.
 
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS
Kratovil v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [07/17/07] 2007 MTWCC 30 The legal standard for determining proximate causation under § 39-72-408, MCA, is whether a claimant’s employment significantly aggravated or contributed to his alleged occupational disease. Even if a nonwork-related motorcycle accident contributed to Petitioner’s hand and wrist conditions, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s employment significantly aggravated or contributed to his occupational disease and did so both before and after the motorcycle accident.
Oksendahl v. Liberty Northwest [06/21/07] 2007 MTWCC 24 The correct test for compensability under the Occupational Disease Act is whether occupational factors significantly aggravated or contributed to the injured worker’s condition.
Faulkner v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. [04/24/07] 2007 MTWCC 15 Based on the trial testimony of Petitioner’ treating physician, the medical evidence, and the evidence regarding Petitioner’s work activities, the Court concludes that Petitioner sustained an occupational disease in the course and scope of his employment at N.E.W. Petitioner’s employment activities at N.E.W. were the major contributing cause of his occupational disease in relation to other factors.
Faulkner v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. [04/24/07] 2007 MTWCC 15 Under the 2005 version of the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Court does not need to determine whether Petitioner’s occupational disease is related to the January 2000 injury or is a new distinct occupational disease unrelated to the 2000 injury. The Court only needs to determine whether the events that occurred during Petitioner’s employment at N.E.W. were the “major contributing cause” of his occupational disease in relation to other factors.
Mack v. Montana State Fund [08/12/05] 2005 MTWCC 48 Causation is found where the treating pulmonologist provides persuasive and reasoned testimony that the cumulative effect of the claimant’s work exposure to grain dust caused permanent obstructive lung disease.
Vercos v. Workers' Compensation Risk Retention Program [6/30/04] 2004 MTWCC 53 To prevail on an occupational disease claim based on exposure to mold, the claimant must show that mold, which is ubiquitous, was present in the workplace at higher levels than other places the claimant frequents.
Vercos v. Workers' Compensation Risk Retention Program [6/30/04] 2004 MTWCC 53 To prevail on an occupational disease claim based on exposure to mold, the clamant must prove that her medical condition was in fact caused or aggravated by her exposure to mold in the workplace. Belief and speculation as to causation are not sufficient.
Fuss v. Ins. Co. of NA and Valor [4/8/04] 2004 MTWCC 34 Liability for an occupational disease extends only to the disease and to conditions and sequella that are caused by the occupational disease.

State Fund v. Carl Murray [4/6/04] 2004 MTWCC 33 The Montana Occupational Disease Act does not require that occupational exposures be the principal or substantial cause of the condition, only that the "occupational factors significantly aggravated a preexisting condition." § 39-72-408, MCA (1971-1999); Polk v. Planet Ins. Co., 287 Mont. 79, 951 P.2d 1015 (1997). Affirmed Montana State Fund v. Murray, 2005 MT 97

Shorten v. State Comp. Ins. Fund [12/22/95] 1995 MTWCC 110 From the fact that claimant may have suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome it does not follow that her syndrome was the consequence, in whole or in part, of occupational factors. She had a prior history of hand problems, her job involved less repetitive hand motion than she claimed, and the medical evidence did not establish a causal connection.