Ford v. Sentry Casualty Company, 2012 MT 156 The Montana Supreme Court held that it must read §§ 39-71-407 and -119, MCA, together, “not only because the former expressly references the latter, but also because when interpreting statutes we view them as part of a whole statutory scheme and construe them so as to forward the purpose of that scheme.”

Guymon v. Montana State Fund [06/28/16] 2016 MTWCC 7 Where this Court concluded that the claimant's accounts of a physical assault in the workplace were not credible and that the medical opinion he offered to establish causation was based on misinformation, the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof that an accident caused his left-shoulder condition as required by § 39-71-119, MCA.

Warburton v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [01/07/16] 2016 MTWCC 1 Although the Court held that Petitioner suffered an accident within the meaning of § 39-71-119(2), MCA, the Court concluded that she had not proven that the accident caused an injury.  Although the medical evidence indicated that Petitioner has problems with her head, neck, and shoulders, the medical opinions which connected these problems to her industrial accident were based on inaccurate and incomplete medical histories Petitioner provided her doctors and she therefore failed to satisfy her burden of proving causation.

Myles v. Sparta Insurance Company [05/30/14] 2014 MTWCC 19 The opinions of two treating physicians that Petitioner’s hip condition resulted from a work-related injury were more persuasive than the opinion of the IME physician who never asked Petitioner about the onset of symptoms but relied instead on a review of Petitioner’s medical records.  Although these records consistently referred to a popping sound and sudden onset of hip pain from stepping up into a semi-truck, the IME physician never referenced this history in his report and concluded Petitioner’s hip condition was not a result of a work-related injury.

Starkey v. ACE American Ins. Co. [03/17/14] 2014 MTWCC 6 Petitioner proved both an “injury” and an “accident” as defined in § 39-71-119, MCA, through her own testimony and the testimony of corroborating witnesses, that at a specific time on a specific day she twisted her foot on the slanted leg of a picnic table and exclaimed aloud in pain; she was observed using crutches and a motorized cart on succeeding days at work by two managers; and on her first day off after the accident she sought medical treatment and was found on x-ray to have a fractured bone in her foot.

Hartford v. Montana State Fund, In re Claim of McKirdy [08/01/12] 2012 MTWCC 28 Although Respondent argues that the claimant suffered from an occupational disease, the evidence presented to the Court was that the claimant felt a “pop” while working, the claimant’s supervisor testified that he witnessed the incident, and the claimant’s treating physician opined that the claimant’s rotator cuff tear was caused by an industrial accident.  The Court concluded the claimant had an injury and not an occupational disease.

Peterson v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [03/05/12] 2012 MTWCC 7 Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that he sustained an “accident” as defined by § 39-71-119, MCA, where the only evidence supporting his claim was the description in his medical records that a storage unit door fell on him.  Due to his cognitive difficulties, Petitioner was unable to give an accurate accounting of the events that caused his accident. Every other witness testified that the storage unit doors cannot fall down when they are opened, and there was insufficient medical evidence to prove his condition resulted from trauma.

Martin v. Montana State Fund [08/26/11] 2011 MTWCC 25 Although Petitioner’s treating physician identified objective medical findings to support Petitioner’s claim of lumbar spine problems, Petitioner did not establish that his injury occurred because of a specific event on a single day or during a single work shift.  Neither his co-worker nor his employer could corroborate his account of an industrial accident.  Petitioner and his co-worker both testified that Petitioner said nothing about an injury at the time Petitioner alleged it occurred, and Petitioner’s employer testified that Petitioner specifically denied injuring himself on the job.  Petitioner contradicted himself on this point between his trial and deposition testimony.  Petitioner failed to establish that his injury was caused by an accident within the meaning found in § 39-71-119, MCA.

Petritz v. Montana State Fund [06/10/10] 2010 MTWCC 17 On an 85-degree day, a sheet metal worker was installing a piece of duct work onto an assembly which weighed several hundred pounds when the jack holding the duct work in place became snagged and twisted the assembly.  The worker lifted one end of the duct work and held it while other workers freed the jack.  The incident qualifies as an unusual strain and therefore constitutes an accident as defined by the statute.