Montana Workers’ Compensation Court
PUBLISHED OPINIONS Munn v. Montana State Fund (CLICK HERE TO ACCESS DECISION)
Case Number: WCC No. MSF-2026-0000003-MISC
Citation: 2026 MTWCC 3
Date of Decision: May 18, 2026
Court: Montana Workers’ Compensation Court
Judge: Judge Lee Bruner
Attorneys:
For Petitioner: Lucas A. Wallace
For Respondent: Mark D. Meyer
Brief Factual Summary
Holly Munn sought summary judgment after the Department of Labor & Industry medical review panel reopened her medical benefits under § 39-71-717, MCA, finding that her ongoing cervical condition was related to her industrial injury and required treatment to allow her to return to work. Despite the panel’s decision, Montana State Fund obtained a post-panel IME concluding that Munn had reached maximum medical improvement and that her current symptoms were unrelated to the industrial injury. Based on the IME, State Fund denied further treatment and referrals.
The Workers’ Compensation Court held that the medical review panel’s reopening decision was binding unless appealed pursuant to § 39-71-717(10), MCA. The Court determined that State Fund could not effectively override the panel’s decision by simply denying all treatment after obtaining a contrary IME opinion. The Court ordered State Fund to reopen and administer medical benefits consistent with the panel’s findings but denied Munn’s request for attorney fees, costs, and a penalty because the case concerned enforcement of the panel process rather than adjudication of compensability itself.
Key Takeaway
A Montana insurer may not circumvent a DLI medical review panel’s decision reopening medical benefits by obtaining a contrary IME and denying treatment without first appealing the panel decision. The Court emphasized that the panel’s findings are presumed correct and binding unless overturned through the statutory appeal process.
SUBMITTED MATTERS
Motions & Miscellaneous Matters
| Case | Pleading | Date Submitted |
| Rutledge v. Technology Ins. Co. | Petitioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement | 2/11/26 |
| Rutledge v. Technology Ins. Co. | Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment | 2/17/26 |
| DesRosier v. MMIA
|
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment | 5/4/26 |
| Crisler v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
|
Respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment | 5/11/26 |
| Crisler v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
|
Respondent’s Motion in Limine | 5/11/26 |
| Glover v. Montana State Fund
|
Petitioner’s Motion in Limine | 5/11/26 |
| Parker / Leggitt v. Safeway
|
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment | 5/12/26 |
| Guitron v. UEF | UEF’s Motion for Summary Judgment | 5/15/26
|
| Guitron v. UEF | Villegas Del Villar’s Motion for Summary Judgment | 5/20/26
|
| Crisler v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. | Petitioner’s Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment | 5/21/26 |
Montana Workers’ Compensation Stipulations Summary (through May 21, 2026)
PLAN 2
| Case Name | DOI | Body Part(s) | Settlement Type | Settlement Amount | Petitioner Attorney | Respondent Attorney |
| James Craig v. Employers Preferred Ins. Co. | 9/15/24 | Head and neck | Full and Final – Disputed Initial Compensability | $42,500.00 | Lighthall, David
Carey Law Firm PC |
Smith, Charlie
Crowley Fleck PLLP |
| Connor Finck v. Nationwide Agribusiness | 9/8/23 | Low back | Full and Final – Disputed Initial Compensability | $7,500.00 | Overturf, Lea
Odegaard Injury Lawyers |
Maynard, Joe
Crowley Fleck PLLP |
| Mary Purvis v. Intrepid Ins. Co. | 8/19/23 | Low back | Full and Final – Medicals Closed | $160,000.00 inclusive of $108,719.00 MSA | Dalpiaz, Miranda
Dalpiaz & Associates |
Maynard, Joe
Crowley Fleck PLLP |
ESD Settlements Approved through May 15, 2026
PLAN 2
| Claimant Name | DOI | Body Part | Settlement Type | Settlement Amount | Attorney Name |
| Becker, Clayton | 8/15/25 | Teeth | Best Interests | $5,000.00 | None |
| Kaftan, Kelley | 10/9/23 | Shoulder(s) | Best Interests | $70,000.00 | Evans, Alex |
| Monrroy Diaz, Jhomar | 5/28/25 | Finger(s) | Best Interests | $1,000.00 | Murphy, Matthew |
| Newby, Jessica | 12/20/24 | Skull | Best Interests | $180,000.00 | Tourtlotte, Matthew |
| Schmidt, Travis | 8/5/26 | Low back | Lump Sum Advance | $20,000.00 | Tempel-St. John, Stacy |
| Walter, Doris | 2/21/23 | Hip | Petition for Settlement – Medicals Closed | $6,500.00 | None |
PLAN 3
| Claimant Name | DOI | Body Part | Settlement Type | Settlement Amount | Attorney Name |
| Andrew, Matthew | 12/24/24 | Pelvis | Best Interests | $1,600.00 | None |
| Block, Jeffrey | 2/21/23 | Knee | Best Interests | $95,000.00 | Blackaby, Dean |
| Douglas, Chad | 9/20/24 | Upper leg | Disputed Initial Compensability | $11,000.00 | None |
| Froemke, Michaelea | 5/29/25 | Lower arm | Best Interests | $500.00 | None |
| Gauthier, Kenneth | 2/1/23 | Lower back | Best Interests | $36,500.00 | Wallace, Lucas |
| Gower, Kristine | 11/16/22 | Wrist | Best Interests | $900.00 | None |
| Maksin, Michael | 7/14/24 | Low back | Petition for Settlement – Medicals Reserved | $660,000.00 | None |
| McManus, Patrick | 11/18/24 | Ankle | Best Interests | $6,400.00 | None |
| Murphy, Jade | 1/22/22 | Wrist | Best Interests | $3,500.00 | None |
| Thompson, Lily | 11/8/25 | Low back | Disputed Initial Compensability | $7,500.00 | None |
Key Insights for Montana Work Comp Professionals
- Munn v. Montana State Fund
The decision in Munn v. Montana State Fund significantly reinforces the binding effect of DLI medical panel determinations under § 39-71-717, MCA. The Court made clear that insurers cannot sidestep a reopening order by obtaining a contrary IME after the panel decision without first pursuing the statutory appeal process. This strengthens claimant leverage in disputes involving reopening of medical benefits and may alter post-panel claims handling practices. - Motion Practice
The submitted motions docket reflects a notable concentration of dispositive motion practice, particularly summary judgment motions and motions in limine. Cases such as Crisler v. Zurich, Rutledge v. Technology Insurance, and Guitron v. UEF suggest increasing reliance on legal issue resolution prior to trial, especially in disputes involving compensability and evidentiary limitations. - Low Back Injuries Escalate Settlement Dollars
Settlement data in the stipulations summary demonstrates continued high valuation of low-back and medically complex claims. The largest reported settlement was a $660,000 Plan 3 settlement with medicals reserved involving a low-back injury (Maksin), while another low-back matter resolved for $160,000 inclusive of a large Medicare Set-Aside. This indicates sustained exposure concerns for carriers on chronic spine claims, particularly where future medical remains significant. - Disputed Initial Compensability Settlements Resolve for Low Dollar Figures
Several approved settlements categorized as “Disputed Initial Compensability” resolved for comparatively modest amounts ($7,500–$42,500), suggesting insurers continue using nuisance-value or risk-management settlements in questionable liability cases. The pattern indicates ongoing litigation risk management even where compensability defenses remain viable. - Increased Number of Settlements Without Attorney Representation
The ESD settlement approvals show a substantial number of unrepresented claimants resolving claims without counsel, particularly in Plan 3 cases. However, higher-dollar settlements tended to involve attorney participation, including the $95,000 Block settlement and settlements involving complex medical exposure. This may reinforce the practical distinction between routine settlements and cases requiring sophisticated medical or legal development.
