Montana Occupational Disease Law
Everyone understands that if you have an on-the-job injury, workers compensation gets you medical care and income loss benefits. This is also true for workers who suffer a job-caused malady or disease - this is what workers compensation does. But in Montana, as elsewhere, workers who have been injured have always been treated better than those suffering from occupational diseases.
What is the difference between an injury and an occupational disease [OD]? Is there a good reason to have separate definitions for these things?
Legally, the difference is the amount of time it takes to be injured or to contract an OD. In Montana we define the term occupational disease as bodily harm from a job-related condition which develops over more than a single workday. Our law says a work injury can only occur on one specific workday, whereas an OD can only occur over a more extended time than one workday.
In Montana, this is the only legal difference between a workplace injury and a compensable OD: the amount of time it takes to be harmed.
This bright line between an injury and an OD has led to important improvements in benefits for OD sufferers. As of now in Montana we mostly pay the same benefits at the same rate for injuries as for occupational diseases. It has not always been that way. Several times in the last 20 years the Montana Supreme Court has found it unconstitutional to offer better benefits to an "injured" worker than to one who suffers from an occupational disease.
In 1999 in Henry v. State Fund, the Montana Supreme Court determined that it was unconstitutional for our law to deny Voc Rehab benefits in OD cases while allowing Voc Rehab in injury cases. Then in 2003 in Stavenjord v. Montana State Fund, the Court invalidated a state law setting a ceiling on benefits payable in OD cases since no similar ceiling existed in injury cases. Around the same time in Schmill v. Liberty Northwest Insurance, the Court declared unconstitutional the mandatory apportionment of OD benefits to non-work factors (leading to a reduction of benefits) because no apportionment statute existed for injury cases.
These decisions largely equalized benefits for injuries and OD's. But that is not the end of the story. Montana law still discriminates against ODs by requiring OD claimants to meet a higher proof standard than an injury claimant has to . The OD statutes say that an occupational disease will not be compensable unless the claimant proves that events occurring on more than a single day or work shift are the "major contributing cause" in relation to other factors contributing to the occupational disease. Hammering the point, the statute says that a major contributing cause of an OD must be the "leading cause" contributing to the result when compared to all other contributing causes.
This major contributing cause law does not apply to injuries. That makes it a huge sticking point in our occupational disease law. We need to ask the Montana Supreme Court: Is it constitutional to force a worker suffering from an OD to prove that events in the workplace are the major contributing cause when an injured worker does not have to meet this proof? And what does"leading cause" really mean? Is it just the most recent exposure to the work hazard? Or is it a cause that rises above all others in some way? If it rises above all others or is more important or more significant, what do these vague terms mean?
The most likely answer will come after an attack on the statute's constitutionality. As it has done several times before in other OD cases, the Montana Supreme Court may well find it an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws to set the bar higher for the OD sufferer than for the injured worker to prove his/her case. While the "major contributing cause" statute has not yet been found unconstitutional, Schmill and the similar decisions suggest that the "major contributing cause" requirement is constitutionally at risk.
Another approach may be to expand on the decision in Grande v. Montana State Fund from 2012. In that decision, the Montana State Fund claimed that a worker suffering from arthritis and directed by his treating physician to quit his job could not prove that his truck-driving job was the major contributing cause of his arthritis and therefore he was not entitled to benefits. Rejecting that, the Supreme Court noted that the law requires an employer to take an employee as the employer finds him, and pre-existing conditions such as the worker's arthritis do not preclude payment of benefits under the "major contributing cause" requirement. The court noted that the statute requires consideration of pre-existing conditions so that courts can apply the "major contributing cause" properly in an OD case. Grande established that the existence of a pre-existing condition, aggravated by an occupational disease, can overcome the major contributing cause requirement of the OD statute.
More on occupational diseases in the near future.
Everyone understands that if you have an on-the-job injury, workers compensation gets you medical care and income loss benefits. This is also true for workers who suffer a job-caused malady or disease - this is what workers compensation does. But in Montana, as elsewhere, workers who have been injured have always been treated better than those suffering from occupational diseases.
What is the difference between an injury and an occupational disease [OD]? Is there a good reason to have separate definitions for these things?
Legally, the difference is the amount of time it takes to be injured or to contract an OD. In Montana we define the term occupational disease as bodily harm from a job-related condition which develops over more than a single workday. Our law says a work injury can only occur on one specific workday, whereas an OD can only occur over a more extended time than one workday.
In Montana, this is the only legal difference between a workplace injury and a compensable OD: the amount of time it takes to be harmed.
This bright line between an injury and an OD has led to important improvements in benefits for OD sufferers. As of now in Montana we mostly pay the same benefits at the same rate for injuries as for occupational diseases. It has not always been that way. Several times in the last 20 years the Montana Supreme Court has found it unconstitutional to offer better benefits to an "injured" worker than to one who suffers from an occupational disease.
In 1999 in Henry v. State Fund, the Montana Supreme Court determined that it was unconstitutional for our law to deny Voc Rehab benefits in OD cases while allowing Voc Rehab in injury cases. Then in 2003 in Stavenjord v. Montana State Fund, the Court invalidated a state law setting a ceiling on benefits payable in OD cases since no similar ceiling existed in injury cases. Around the same time in Schmill v. Liberty Northwest Insurance, the Court declared unconstitutional the mandatory apportionment of OD benefits to non-work factors (leading to a reduction of benefits) because no apportionment statute existed for injury cases.
These decisions largely equalized benefits for injuries and OD's. But that is not the end of the story. Montana law still discriminates against ODs by requiring OD claimants to meet a higher proof standard than an injury claimant has to . The OD statutes say that an occupational disease will not be compensable unless the claimant proves that events occurring on more than a single day or work shift are the "major contributing cause" in relation to other factors contributing to the occupational disease. Hammering the point, the statute says that a major contributing cause of an OD must be the "leading cause" contributing to the result when compared to all other contributing causes.
This major contributing cause law does not apply to injuries. That makes it a huge sticking point in our occupational disease law. We need to ask the Montana Supreme Court: Is it constitutional to force a worker suffering from an OD to prove that events in the workplace are the major contributing cause when an injured worker does not have to meet this proof? And what does"leading cause" really mean? Is it just the most recent exposure to the work hazard? Or is it a cause that rises above all others in some way? If it rises above all others or is more important or more significant, what do these vague terms mean?
The most likely answer will come after an attack on the statute's constitutionality. As it has done several times before in other OD cases, the Montana Supreme Court may well find it an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws to set the bar higher for the OD sufferer than for the injured worker to prove his/her case. While the "major contributing cause" statute has not yet been found unconstitutional, Schmill and the similar decisions suggest that the "major contributing cause" requirement is constitutionally at risk.
Another approach may be to expand on the decision in Grande v. Montana State Fund from 2012. In that decision, the Montana State Fund claimed that a worker suffering from arthritis and directed by his treating physician to quit his job could not prove that his truck-driving job was the major contributing cause of his arthritis and therefore he was not entitled to benefits. Rejecting that, the Supreme Court noted that the law requires an employer to take an employee as the employer finds him, and pre-existing conditions such as the worker's arthritis do not preclude payment of benefits under the "major contributing cause" requirement. The court noted that the statute requires consideration of pre-existing conditions so that courts can apply the "major contributing cause" properly in an OD case. Grande established that the existence of a pre-existing condition, aggravated by an occupational disease, can overcome the major contributing cause requirement of the OD statute.
More on occupational diseases in the near future.