Rehabilitation Benefits

Benefits: Rehabilitation Benefits

Stancil v. MHA Workers' Compensation Trust [12/06/07] 2007 MTWCC 51 Where Petitioner’s employer appropriately placed him in transitional employment following his post-injury return to the workplace, Petitioner demonstrated the ability to perform the essential job functions of the position and was personally and professionally qualified to perform the position, and eventually accepted the position on a permanent basis, the Court held that Petitioner did not suffer an actual wage loss when he was discharged from his employment as a result of behavioral issues. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to PPD or rehabilitation benefits.

McCoy v. Benefis Healthcare [11/19/02] 2002 MTWCC 59 Rehabilitation benefits are payable during semester breaks where the claimant is pursuing a college degree under a rehabilitation plan prepared by the vocational consultant designated by the provider. Section 39-71-1006, MCA (1997), which governs rehabilitation benefits provides for payment of those benefits during "the period specified in the rehabilitation plan," and the period contemplated by the statute is a calendar period not a chopped up series of periods defined by actual class attendance.

Petersen v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. [4/28/01] 2001 MTWCC 49 Claimant is not entitled to rehabilitation benefits where she has rejected a plan proposed by the insurer's vocational consultant and has not presented any alternative plan. § 39-71-1006, MCA (1997).

Lalum v. Safeco Ins. [3/19/01] 2001 MTWCC 11 Where claimant=s immediate post-injury jobs include higher paying light-duty positions which have never been medically disapproved, there is no wage loss and therefore no entitlement to rehabilitation benefits.

Beyl v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [12/21/00] 2000 MTWCC 75 Under 1997 law, a claimant who does not suffer a rateable impairment is not entitled to rehabilitation benefits.

Patrick v. State Compensation Insurance Fund [4/4/00] 2000 MTWCC 20 Where insurer essentially limited the rehabilitation evaluation to the gathering of information to support the insurer's prior conclusion claimant suffered no wage loss, the evaluation was woefully inadequate and fell far short of the "careful assessment of the worker's realistic and reasonable prospects for obtaining employment" or the "further assessment of the realistic wages he or she is likely to earn" required by this Court in Leastman v. Liberty Mutual Fire. Ins. Co., 1999 MTWCC 2. So that the insurer would not take advantage of its unreasonable delay in creating and implementing a rehabilitation plan, claimant awarded retroactive temporary total disability benefits. Penalty and attorneys' fees also awarded. (After decision, parties settled and presented a Stipulated Judgment to the Court, which then issued its Order Nunc Pro Tunc For Entry of Judgement and Dismissal with Prejudice, Patrick v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 2000 MTWCC 20A.)

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.

Kemp v. Montana Contractor Compensation Fund [8/17/98] 1998 MTWCC 63 Section 39-71-1006, MCA (1995) requires actual wage loss as a result of an injury as a prerequisite to entitlement to rehabilitation benefits. If a wage loss exists, the section requires development of a rehabilitation plan and approval or disapproval by the insurer. While the Court ultimately has jurisdiction to resolve a dispute over a rehabilitation plan, or to compel the insurer to follow statutory procedures relating to development of a plan, those questions are properly deferred until resolution of the threshold question, whether claimant has a wage loss. Request that Court approve a specific plan is dismissed as premature.

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.

Carlson-Owens v. Liberty NW [4/28/97] 1997 MTWCC 27 Under section 39-71-1006, MCA (1995), claimant without wage loss is not entitled to rehabilitation benefits.