Causation: Medical Condition
MONTANA
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS |
Polk
v. Planet Insurance Co., 287 Mont. 79, 951 P.2d 1015 (1997)
In light of the occupational disease proximate cause requirement, set
out at section 39-71-408, MCA, and the aggravation statute, section
39-71-706, MCA, occupational aggravations of preexisting non-occupational
diseases are compensable, as are occupational diseases which are aggravated
by non-occupational factors. The test for compensability under the OD
Act is whether occupational factors significantly aggravated a preexisting
condition, not whether occupational factors played the major or most
significant role in causing a particular disease. As long as an occupational
exposure substantially aggravated a pulmonary condition, claimant is
entitled to pro rata compensation for his disease. The DOL hearing examiner,
and the WC Court, erred in basing their decision on medical opinions
by physicians who operated under the mistaken assumption that occupational
irritants had to be the major factor causing a pulmonary condition for
claimant to receive compensation. |
Satterlee
v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 280 Mont. 85, 929 P.2d 212
(1996) Substantial evidence did not support WCC finding that claimant’s
disabling depression and post-traumatic stress disorder arose after
work-injury and were not compensable. |
Satterlee
v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 280 Mont. 85, 929 P.2d 212
(1996) An employer takes its employee as it finds her and if her
disability is aggravated by an underlying physical or emotional condition,
that employer is liable for disability which results from that aggravation.
|
Satterlee
v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 280 Mont. 85, 929 P.2d 212
(1996) Substantial evidence did not support WCC finding that claimant's
disabling depression and post-traumatic stress disorder arose after
work-injury and were not compensable. |
| Briney v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co., 283 Mont. 346, 942 P.2d 81 (1997) Where physician testified that the most significant injury contributing to claimant’s current disability was the original injury for which the insurer was liable, WCC erred in concluding that insurer was relieved of liability due to subsequent exacerbations following MMI. Even though intervertebral disk had returned to its normal anatomical configuration, the deterioration of claimant’s condition and his present physical impairment were traced to the injury for which the insurer was liable. |
Best
v. State Compensation Insurance Fund,
276 Mont. 302, 916 P.1d 108 (1996) Claimant
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
he was injured on the job and that a causal connection exists between
his work-related injury and his current condition. Where evidence demonstrated
claimant was permanently totally disabled and unable to perform even
sedentary work since at least two years before the alleged injury, claimant
was not entitled to PTD benefits from this employment incident. |
Wilson
v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins., 273
Mont. 313, 903 P.2d 785 (1995) Substantial evidence supported the
conclusion of the Workers’ Compensation Court that claimant did
not prove connection between his 1988 and 1986 back injuries and back
problems commencing in 1993. The initial injuries were relatively minor,
medical treatment was sporadic, the Court credited medical testimony
that the 1988 and 1986 injuries were likely strains that resolved within
a few weeks, and claimant’s own testimony was not credible. Affirming
Wilson v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins.
Co., 1995 MTWCC 9. |
WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS |
Lanes
v. Montana State Fund [09/10/07] 2007 MTWCC 39
Where Petitioner’s treating physician opined that Petitioner overloads
his right knee to compensate for the left and the activities which Petitioner
performed as a minister are the activities of daily living, Petitioner
had to overuse his other limb to compensate for the injured limb, and
therefore the overloading would have caused the development of problems
in that limb, regardless of whether he engaged in subsequent employment. |
Oksendahl
v. Liberty Northwest [06/21/07] 2007 MTWCC 24
Where a doctor opined that the employee’s work as a lifelong carpenter
“probably accelerated” osteoarthritis of the basilar thumb,
the employment was a significant aggravation or contribution to the
development of the employee’s occupational disease. |
Oksendahl
v. Liberty Northwest [06/21/07] 2007 MTWCC 24
A doctor’s conclusion that the worker’s employment was less
than a 50% contribution is not grounds to deny compensability. Occupational
factors need not play the major or most significant role in causing
an OD, but must instead be a significant aggravation or contribution.
|
Strom
v. Montana Municipal Ins. Authority [07/22/05] 2005 MTWCC 42
Where the physician tendering an opinion on the relatedness of a medical
condition to a work-related injury is unable to relate the condition
to the injury and the medical evidence further demonstrates that the
work-related injury fully resolved and that there were subsequent incidents
associated with his medical complaints, the Court finds that there is
no causal connection between the subsequent condition and the work-related
injury. |
Strom
v. Montana Municipal Ins. Authority [07/22/05] 2005 MTWCC 42
An insurer is liable only for medical conditions which are causally
related to a work-related injury. |
Doubek
v. CNA Ins. Co. [11/10/04] 2004 MTWCC 76 A workers' compensation
insurer is liable only for medical conditions which are caused by the
claimant's industrial accident or occupational disease. |
McCauley
v. Liberty N.W. [5/27/04] 2004 MTWCC 43 "Causation is an
essential element to benefit entitlement. The claimant has the burden
to prove a causal connection by a preponderance of the evidence." Hash
v. Montana Silversmith, 256
Mont. 252, 257, 846 P.2d 981, 983 (1993). |
Dolan
v. American Protection Ins. Co. [2/19/04] 2004 MTWCC 9 Insurer
is liable only for medical conditions in fact caused by an industrial
accident. |
Andersen
v. Zurich Amerian Ins. Co. [6/27/03] 2003 MTWCC 45 Insurer
is liable only for a medical condition and disability arising as a result
of an industrial injury. It is not liable for a new, unrelated condition
caused by a subsequent non-work-related accident even though both injuries
involved the back since they involved different parts of the back and
were distinct injuries. |
Markovich
v. Helmsman Management Services [1/31/03] 2003 MTWCC 4 An insurer
is liable only for medical conditions and disability caused by the industrial
accident. §§ 39-71-701 through 704, MCA (1999). |
Hand
v. Royal Ins. [12/19/02 2002 MTWCC 65 Where uncontradicted medical
evidence and opinion indicated claimant's underlying, preexisting cervical
stenosis caused both her neck surgery and disability, she was not entitled
to additional benefits relating to work incident involving jar to her
body when she stepped backwards off a garage onto ground approximately
one foot lower. |
Oswald
v. Horizon CMS Healthcare Corp. [12/5/02] 2002 MTCC 62 While
the Court was persuaded the former nurse's aide who was exposed to bodily
fluids and blood of patients, frequently with open cuts on her hands
and not wearing gloves, acquired Hepatitis C through contact with a
patient's blood or bodily fluids, her occupational disease claim is
denied where uncontroverted medical evidence established Hepatitis C
is acquired through a single exposure. |
Watkins
v. State Fund [2/22/02] 2002 MTWCC 11 Where surgery was the
direct and inevitable result of a prior injury, and a subsequent exacerbation
of the preexisting condition did not cause the surgery or materially
accelerate the need for surgery, the insurer for the subsequent exacerbation
is not liable for the surgery. |
Davis
v. Ins. Co. of PA [8/20/01] 2001 MTWCC 45 Claimant suffering
from right-sided glioma-type brain tumor failed to persuade the Court
her tumor was caused by work-related blow to the left side of her head.
The testimony of a tumor specialist, who was far more qualified than
other testifying physicians, was persuasive that no link has been established
between trauma and glioma-type brain tumors and that in any event glioma-type
tumors develop slowly and could not have possibly developed in the short
time in this case. |
Munroe
v. MT Electric & Telephone Pool [8/16/01] 2001 MTWCC 43
Court will not find current spinal condition was caused by an industrial
accident where claimant's medical history, which demonstrates that claimant
has long history of chronic pain problems and a long history of degenerative
spine problems, and persuasive medical testimony shows that her spinal
problems are not related to her industrial accident. |
Stacks
v. Travelers/State Fund [3/1/01] 2001 MTWCC 9 Where claimant
had a long history of back and neck problems, including prior workers'
compensation claims, insurer at risk at time of workplace fall aggravating
claimant's neck and back carried its burden of proving the fall caused
only a temporary aggravation of claimant's lumbar spine condition, but
failed to prove the aggravation to claimant's neck was only temporary.
|
Romero
v. Liberty Mutual & State Fund [1/29/01] 2001 MTWCC 5 Where
condition develops over a period of years as a natural progression and
result of an earlier workers' compensation injury, the insurer for the
earlier injury is liable even though part of the progression occurred
during subsequent employment. [Note: The Supreme Court
affirmed the WCC decision in Romero
v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2001 MT 303N (a non-citeable
decision.)] |
Grayes v. Uninsured Employers Fund [7/24/00] 2000 MTWCC 46 Claimant
was not entitled to occupational disease benefits where neither his
treating physician nor the physician who conducted an occupational disease
examination could relate his shoulder condition to his operation of
a tractor. |
LaPlant
v. State Compensation Insurance Fund [11/24/99] 1999 MTWCC 75
Where State Fund failed to accept or deny a 1987 claim within thirty
days, under section 39-71-606, MCA (1985) and Haag
v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Authority, 274 Mont. 109, 906 P.2d
693 (1995), it is in the same position as though it had accepted
the claim. State Fund is not, however, liable for a wide range of medical
bills without proof of a causal relationship to the claimed elbow injury. |
Kaiser
v. Sears [6/28/96] 1996 MTWCC 47
Where an IME panel found claimant's 1995 complaints of pain related
to his 1981 electrocution injury, even though likely exacerbated by
deconditioning, and recommended three physical therapy sessions, the
Court finds treatment by claimant's family practitioner and one month's
physical therapy related to the original injury and reasonable medical
treatment. Additional physical therapy was found not reasonable where
prescribed without examination of claimant or discussion with the physical
therapist. |
Liberty
NW Ins. v. Champion International [6/25/96] 1996 MTWCC 45 Based
on the "last injurious exposure" language of section 39-72-303(1),
MCA, in Caekaert v. State Compensation
Insurance Fund, 268 Mont. 105, 885 P.2d 495 (1994), the Montana
Supreme Court extended the subsequent injury rule to a subsequent occupational
disease for which the initial insurer was liable. This case turns on
whether claimant, a millwright who injured his back in 1992, materially
and significantly aggravated his condition by subsequent work at the
same mill under a different employing entity, with a different insurer.
If his current condition were merely a recurrence resulting from his
1992 injury, or merely the result of a natural progression of his preexisting
condition, then the first insurer would remain liable. The Court was
persuaded, however, by testimony of two doctors and the claimant, that
his subsequent work caused material and significant deterioration of
his low-back condition and caused his disability. (Note:
this decision was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court in
Liberty Northwest v. Stimson Lumber Company, 285 Mont. 76, 945
P.2d 433 (1997) (No. 96-368). |
Erickson
v. Champion International [3/12/96] 1996 MTWCC 23 WCC reversed
and remanded DOL decision that claimant did not suffer from an occupational
disease where the decision rested on the opinion of a doctor who applied
an incorrect understanding of the law. The doctor opined that claimant's
knee condition was not an occupational disease because not all mill
workers develop similar knee conditions, ignoring the settled principle
that an employer takes a worker as it finds him, making the fact that
non-susceptible or non-predisposed workers would not be affected by
working conditions irrelevant to a determination whether an occupational
disease exists in a particular worker. |
Erickson
v. Champion International [3/12/96] 1996 MTWCC 23 The fact that
claimant's underlying condition would ultimately have been totally disabling
due to a natural progression of an underlying condition does not preclude
compensation where the disability was hastened by a work-related injury
or conditions. |
Gallup
v. State Fund [2/9/96] 1996 MTWCC 14 A 36-year old sales and
delivery person developed a blister on the left side of her groin after
unexpectedly performing delivery work involving substantial exertion
in pantyhose and new slacks. The blister developed into an abscess and,
despite medical treatment, claimant continued to develop abscesses and
sores diagnosed as hidradenitis suppurative, a chronic disease. The
insurer accepted the claim and conceded liability for treatment and
disability associated with abscesses near the original blister, but
disputed continued liability for claimant's chronic condition. From
the medical evidence presented, WCC concluded that medical science is
currently unable to determine what causes hidradenitis. Applying a line
of cases decided under pre-1995 statutes, beginning with Moffett
v. Bozeman Canning Co., 95 Mont. 347, 26 P.2d 973 (1933), and most
recently including Prillaman
v. Community Medical Center,
264 Mont. 134, 870 P.2d 82 (1994), the WCC held that where the etiology
of a condition is not known, the presence of ongoing symptoms of the
disease post-injury, joined with medical testimony that the condition
may spread from one infected site to another, creates strong evidence
that claimant's condition became symptomatic because of the industrial
injury. |
Best
v. State Compensation Insurance Fund [8/23/95] 1995 MTWCC 62,
aff’d Best v. State Compensation
Insurance Fund, 276 Mont. 302,
916 P.1d 108 (1996) Claimant with long history of back pain was
hired jointly with wife to work at bar and cafe. He suffered an acute
flare-up after hitting his hip on a table. The insurer paid medical
benefits relating to the flare-up, but refused to pay PTD benefits.
Although a chiropractor opined claimant was worse off after the 1993
incident, the WCC found this opinion based on a misunderstanding of
the facts where claimant’s wife had been performing 95% of the work
at the bar and cafe. Claimant did not meet the definition of permanent
total disability (section 39-71-116, (16), MCA (1991)) where his permanent
total disability predated the 1993 incident and was not caused by that
incident. |
Irish v. State Compensation Ins. Fund [4/10/95] 1995 MTWCC 26 Where medical evidence along with claimant’s testimony indicates that his current condition results from the 1977 work injury, he is entitled to medical expenses related to that condition. |
Beckers
v. State Compensation Ins. Fund [02/08/95] 1995 MTWCC 11 Where
medical evidence linked claimant’s ongoing need for treatment
for his neck condition to industrial injuries, insurer’s reference
to subsequent temporary aggravations of claimant’s condition did
not sever its liability. Indeed, insurer’s denial of liability
in absence of medical opinion that later incidents constituted permanent
aggravation was unreasonable, justifying imposition of penalty and attorneys
fees. |
Wilson
v. Liberty Mututal Fire Ins. [02/03/95] 1995 MTWCC 9 Where
claimant is required under both the 1985 and 1987 Workers’ Compensation
Acts to show that his disabling condition results from his industrial
accident, and the credible evidence convinced the Court that claimants
1988 and 1986 back injuries were temporary strains, he is not entitled
to further permanent partial disability benefits for a back condition
commencing in 1993. |