Baeth v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. [05/05/14] 2014 MTWCC 10 Petitioner’s treating physician found her to be suffering from a “classic asbestos related obstructive defect” and assigned her a 45% impairment rating under the 5th Edition of the AMA Guides.  The Court concluded that under Drake and Hilbert, the “current edition of the Guides” in § 39-71-711(1)(b), MCA, are those in effect on the date claimant reaches MMI, and since under Fellenberg, an asbestosis victim was at MMI on the date of diagnosis, the physician used the correct edition of the guides that were in effect in May 2005, when Petitioner was first diagnosed with ARD.

Monroe v. MACO Workers Comp Trust [03/17/14] 2014 MTWCC 7 In order to be entitled to permanent partial disability benefits, a claimant must have an impairment rating established by an impairment evaluator under § 39-71-711, MCA.  Petitioner’s argument rests entirely upon the premise that at death, an individual is 100% impaired, which fails to satisfy the requirements of the WCA.

Estate of Hirth v. Montana State Fund [12/27/12] 2012 MTWCC 47 Where two physicians reviewed the injured worker’s medical records and rendered impairment ratings, the situation falls under § 39-71-711, MCA, and not § 39-71-605, MCA, because these physicians did not conduct an IME, but rather rendered opinions based on their record reviews.  The value of their respective expert opinions, which conflict with the opinions of the treating physician, are a matter of weight, not admissibility.

Drake v. Montana State Fund and Hilbert v. Montana State Fund [01/19/11] 2011 MTWCC 2 Under § 39-71-711, MCA, an injured worker is evaluated and an impairment rating is calculated after the injured worker reaches MMI.  At that moment, the evaluator uses the “current edition” of the Guides to calculate the impairment rating.  The most reasonable interpretation is that the “current edition” of the Guides are those in effect at the time the worker reaches MMI.

[1999] Thompson v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. [2/25/04] 2004 MTWCC 16 A claimant does not have a right to an independent medical examination paid for by the insurer. Statutes governing IMEs give the insurer, not the claimant, the right to request such examinations. § 39-71-605, MCA (1999). However, a claimant is always free to obtain a second opinion, including a second impairment evaluation, at his or her own expense, § 39-71-711(2), MCA (1999).

[2001] Broyles v. Albertson's [10/22/03] 2003 MTWCC 61 Subsection (4) of section 39-71-711, MCA (2001), precludes an insurer or self-insured employer from obtaining either an IME or FCE for the purposes of obtaining an impairment rating. [Note: See Broyles 2004 MTWCC 19 Withdrawing Decsion and Order Quashing IME and FCE.]

[1995] Kapor v. Liberty Mutual [3/14/03] 2003 MTWCC 22 Impairment" is a term of art connected to impairment ratings and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Impairment. §§ 39-71-703(1) and -711, MCA (1995). Where a claimant is rated with a zero (0%) impairment, the claimant does not have a "permanent impairment" within the meaning of section 39-71-1011(2), MCA (1995) and is not eligible for rehabilitation benefits.

[1997] Beyl v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [12/21/00] 2000 MTWCC 75 Section 39-71-711, MCA, defines permanent impairment under the Workers' Compensation Act and must be followed in determining whether a worker is a disabled worker within the meaning of rehabilitation provisions, § 39-71-1011 (2), MCA (1997).