Ford v. Sentry Casualty Company, 2012 MT 156 Because of changes the 1995 Legislature made to §§ 39-71-119 and -407, MCA, the Montana Supreme Court overruled that statement in Boyd v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., ¶ 22, that “claimants are not required to prove causation through medical expertise or opinion.”  Since 1995, Claimants must establish injury and causation by objective medical findings.

Vonfeldt v. Costco Wholesale Corp. [11/16/15] 2015 MTWCC 20 Petitioner is entitled to acceptance of liability for her myofascial pain syndrome as an OD, as the physicians identified trigger points, which Petitioner’s treating physician defined as a “band of isolated muscle spasm[s],” and decreased range of motion, both of which are specifically included in the definition of “objective medical findings.”

Koch v. Employers Ins. Group [05/19/14] 2014 MTWCC 14 While the Court does not expect medical providers to know and apply the legal definition of “objective medical findings,” the Court will consider items enumerated in the statute as objective medical findings – such as muscle spasms – to be objective medical findings, even if the medical provider does not consider them to be.

Boland v. Montana State Fund [03/21/14] 2014 MTWCC 8 Although the statute requires that an occupational disease be established by objective medical findings, the Court was unable to determine which objective medical findings Petitioner’s treating physician and an IME physician relied upon in reaching their respective opinions.  This, in part, led to the Court concluding that Petitioner had not met his burden of proving that he suffered from an occupational disease arising out of certain employment.

Cornelius v. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance [08/07/12] 2012 MTWCC 29 Where an e-mail sent by one medical provider did not contain objective medical findings, but where the records of two other medical providers contained objective medical findings specifically noted by the Court, the Court concluded that the medical evidence, taken together with Petitioner’s testimony, demonstrated that she suffered from an occupational disease.

Koch v. Employers' Ins. Group [04/30/12] 2012 MTWCC 14 The IME physician believed Petitioner was embellishing and exaggerating her pain; however, no amount of purported embellishment will cause the objective medical finding of a herniated disk to appear on an MRI.

Cornelius v. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance [04/27/12] 2012 MTWCC 13 Under the definition in § 39-71-116(19), MCA, the “global motion deficits” and decreased sensation in one leg noted by Petitioner’s medical providers constitute objective medical findings.

Wilson v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [12/09/10] 2010 MTWCC 33 Petitioner’s treating physician testified that he observed objective medical findings including tenderness over the SI joint, abnormal posture, and limited range of motion, and further testified that Petitioner’s abnormal posture and limited range of motion has been consistent throughout his years of treatment. The Court concluded that these observations were objective medical findings within the meaning of § 39-71-702, MCA, and supported Petitioner’s entitlement to PTD benefits.