Guymon v. Montana State Fund [06/28/16] 2016 MTWCC 7 Where this Court concluded that the medical opinion the claimant 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 Petitioner tripped over a clothing rack at work and fell backwards, landing on the floor, and 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.

Haines v. Montana University System Self-Funded Workers' Compensation Program [06/09/15] 2015 MTWCC 9 Petitioner initially contended that a chlorine gas exposure at work caused him to develop peripheral neuropathy.  He later argued that his peripheral neuropathy was an occupational disease due to chemical exposure in his workplace.  The Court was unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Respondent’s IME panel inadequately investigated his claim by focusing only on Petitioner’s chlorine gas exposure; Petitioner changed his theory only shortly before trial, and the burden of proof lay with him, not Respondent.

Boland v. Montana State Fund [03/21/14] 2014 MTWCC 8 After reviewing Petitioner’s treating physician’s medical records, the Court found that the physician did not have full knowledge of the facts regarding Petitioner’s subsequent employment, a non-work-related fall, and chiropractic treatment.  The Court further found that an IME physician believed that Petitioner’s subsequent employment lasted for six weeks when it actually lasted for several months, and that the IME physician made no objective medical findings.  The Court therefore concluded that Petitioner did not meet his burden of proving that this particular employment was the major contributing cause of his back condition, and therefore he did not prove that he suffers from an occupational disease under the statute.