Banco v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., [01/10/12] 2012 MT 3 Although Petitioner argued that the last injurious exposure rule should not apply because she worked two jobs concurrently and was exposed to conditions giving rise to her occupational disease at both places of employment, the WCC made an express finding that she was last injuriously exposed at one of the two concurrent jobs; this finding precludes an imposition of liability on the other employer.

Vonfeldt v. Costco Wholesale Corp. [11/16/15] 2015 MTWCC 20 Petitioner’s myofascial pain syndrome is a compensable OD because her work was the leading cause of the onset of her pain, and while her treating physician and the IME panel agree that her work aggravated her myofascial pain syndrome, the panel incorrectly believed that it was only a temporary aggravation.  The Court concluded that the aggravation was not “temporary” since Petitioner was still suffering from it more than four years after its onset. 

Vonfeldt v. Costco Wholesale Corp. [11/16/15] 2015 MTWCC 20 Treating physician’s opinion that Petitioner’s bakery job was the major contributing cause of her myofascial pain syndrome was more persuasive than the IME panel’s opinion that her work was a temporary aggravation of a pre-existing condition for three reasons: (1) Petitioner’s physician is a board-certified pain medicine specialist who has treated the Petitioner for years; (2) the panel’s opinion that Petitioner’s pre-existing myofascial pain syndrome was only temporarily aggravated by her heavy work as a baker is refuted by the evidence, as she had no neck and upper-back pain when she started as a baker and years later she continues to be in pain despite changing jobs; and (3) the treating physician’s opinion that Petitioner’s job was the major contributing cause of her pain syndrome is uncontroverted, since the panel physicians were never asked to compare other contributing causes and offer an opinion as to the leading cause.

Cornelius v. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance [04/27/12] 2012 MTWCC 13 Where the medical evidence indicated that Petitioner’s condition is worse now than it was when she reached medical stability, and that her condition had been stable prior to the worsening of her symptoms, and where the parties presented no evidence to suggest that Petitioner’s condition is temporary, the Court interpreted a doctor’s opinion that Petitioner’s work “substantially” aggravated her condition to mean that the doctor believed it was a permanent aggravation.

Grande v. Montana State Fund [06/17/11] 2011 MTWCC 15 Section 39-71-407(2)(a), MCA, provides for the compensability of an aggravation to an underlying condition caused by an injury, but does not contain any language providing for the compensability of an aggravation caused by an OD.  Although the word “aggravation” does not appear in the statutory definition of “occupational disease” at § 39-71-119(2)(d), MCA, the statutory requirement that the work-related aspect of an occupational disease be the “major contributing cause” would be meaningless if permanent aggravations of underlying conditions can no longer be considered occupational diseases even if work-related factors are the major contributing cause of the condition.

[1] An insurer which is liable for a work-related injury continues to be liable for complications and aggravations of that injury until claimant reaches maximum medical improvement.

[2] Where a claimant has reached maximum medical improvement with respect to a prior work-related injury, the insurer for that injury nonetheless remains liable for medical expenses and disability benefits that are a direct and natural result of the original injury or which are a consequence of the natural progression of the injury or condition.

[3] Where a claimant has reached maximum medical improvement with respect to a prior work-related injury and suffers a new work-related trauma or traumas, or some other harmful work-related exposure affecting his preexisting injury or condition, the insurer at risk at the time of the subsequent trauma(s) or exposure is liable for resulting medical expenses and disability benefits if the trauma(s) or exposure materially and substantially aggravated the preexisting injury or condition.

The second and third rules are different sides of the same coin.

Ostwald v. Plum Creek Manufacturing [12/05/95] 1995 MTWCC 102 Although DOL previously found claimant to suffer from an occupational disease, neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel bar his claim for workers’ compensation benefits where Workers’ Compensation Act and Occupational Disease Act are not the same. Court may determine in this proceeding that claimant suffered a compensable injury aggravating his back condition.