Occupational Disease:Rehabiliation Benefits

Henry v. State Fund, 1999 MT 126 The Occupational Disease Act violates the equal protection clause of the Montana Constitution in failing to provide rehabilitation benefits to occupationally diseased workers. In a case involving a herniated disk, the Court sees on rational basis for treating workers who are injured over one work shift differently from workers who are injured over two work shifts. Providing rehabilitation benefits to workers covered by the WCA, but not to workers covered by the ODA, is not rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest of returning workers to work as soon as possible after they have suffered a work-related injury.

Henry v. State Fund [5/13/98] 1998 MTWCC 42. The failure of the Occupational Disease Act to provide rehabilitation benefits to occupationally diseased workers does not violate the equal protection clause of the Montana or United States Constitutions. [Note: the WCC was overruled in this conclusion in Henry v. State Fund, 1999 MT 126.]

Loss v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 282 Mont. 80, 936 P.2d 313 (1997) Statutes and Statutory Interpretation: Inserting or Removing. Where Occupational Disease Act did not provide for rehabilitation benefits to occupational disease claimants, the Court would not “read” that provision into the Act. [Note: the Supreme Court subsequently held that failure to grant rehabilitation benefits to occupational disease claimants is unconstitutional. See, Henry v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 1999 MT 126, 294 Mont. 449, 982 P.2d 456.]