Kellegher v. MACO Workers' Compensation Trust [08/12/15] 2015 MTWCC 16 The Court rejected Respondent’s argument that Petitioner was not permanently totally disabled because his treating physician opined he could possibly return to work where the treating physician did not approve a job analysis for an actual job and did not state unequivocally that Petitioner could return to work.

Peterson v. MSGIA [04/07/06] 2006 MTWCC 14 Although Respondent’s argument that the doctor who treats Petitioner for follow-up care for his compensable shoulder injury is not Petitioner’s treating physician for his non-orthopedic conditions is worthy of consideration, Respondent was willing to accept this doctor’s signature on Petitioner’s job analyses as proof positive that Petitioner could work. When the doctor subsequently opined that Petitioner’s overall health precluded him from working, Respondent disregarded this opinion on the grounds that the doctor was not Petitioner’s treating physician for his diabetes. Respondent cannot consider the doctor to be Petitioner’s treating physician when the doctor approves a release to work and then argue that the doctor is not qualified to render an opinion when the same doctor later opines that Petitioner cannot work.