Montana Workers’ Compensation Court

Jordan v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 MTWCC 7

Case No.:         WCC No. PI-2026-0000102-WCI

Date of Decision: September 8, 2026.

Attorneys: Ross T. Johnson  for Jordan;  Charlie K. Smith for XL Specialty Ins. Co.

Factual and Procedural Summary

Jordan sustained an accepted cervical strain in an August 27, 2023, workplace fall. Her claim was initially closed but reopened after she developed jaw pain and a temporomandibular joint (TMJ) condition that she attributed to the accident. XL Specialty disputed causation. An April 2024 IME by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Albert Olszewski concluded that the cervical strain was work-related but that the jaw condition was not, in part because Jordan did not report jaw pain during her first two post-accident medical visits.

Over the following two years, Jordan received additional dental/TMJ treatment and developed additional medical evidence concerning her jaw condition. After she filed her Petition for Trial, XL Specialty scheduled a second IME with Dr. Joe Meng, a specialist in TMJ conditions. Jordan refused to attend, contending that a second IME was duplicative and that XL Specialty had not established “good cause.”

The Court granted XL Specialty’s motion to compel the second IME. Relying principally on Robinson v. State Compensation Mutual Insurance Fund and Neisinger v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., the Court rejected Jordan’s contention that the Rule 35 “good cause” standard applies to examinations under § 39-71-605, MCA. Instead, Neisinger requires that the examination be (1) for purposes relevant to the claim and (2) appropriate to the handling of the claim.

Both requirements were satisfied. Causation of Jordan’s TMJ condition had become the central dispute, and Dr. Meng possessed specialized TMJ expertise that the original orthopedic IME physician did not. Moreover, two years of additional treatment had generated new diagnoses and findings—including chronic degenerative joint disease—that were not available to the first examiner. The Court found these circumstances analogous to Neisinger, where a subsequent examination was permissible because the claimant’s condition had arguably changed and the earlier examination was two years old.

Key Takeaway

An insurer seeking an additional IME under § 39-71-605, MCA, does not have to establish “good cause.” The controlling inquiry is whether the proposed examination is relevant to the claim and appropriate to its handling. A second IME is particularly supportable where the disputed medical condition has evolved, significant new medical evidence has developed since the prior examination, substantial time has elapsed, or the new examiner possesses specialty expertise directly related to the disputed condition. Jordan therefore provides useful authority for permitting a subsequent IME when there has been a material development in the medical record or the nature of the disputed condition, rather than treating an earlier IME as a categorical bar to further examination.

SUBMITTED MATTERS

     Motions & Miscellaneous Matters

      Upcoming Trials, Hearings & Conferences 

Montana Workers’ Compensation Stipulations Summary (week ending September 10, 2026)

PLAN 1

PLAN 2

ESD Settlements Approved through September 4, 2026

PLAN 1

PLAN 2

PLAN 3

Key Insights for Montana Work Comp Professionals

1. The WCC has clarified the standard for repeat IMEs. In Jordan v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 MTWCC 7, the Court rejected the argument that an insurer must establish Rule 35-style “good cause” before obtaining an additional IME under § 39-71-605, MCA. The operative questions are whether the examination is relevant to the claim and appropriate to its handling. This is an important distinction for both claimant and defense counsel evaluating whether a second IME can be resisted.
2. A change in the medical record can justify a second IME—even without a dramatic change in the claimant’s condition. Jordan is especially useful because the Court relied on the passage of approximately two years, additional treatment, new diagnoses/findings, and the second examiner’s specialized TMJ expertise. Practically, the decision suggests that the strongest objection to a repeat IME will be where the insurer cannot identify new medical evidence, an evolved condition, elapsed time, or a need for different specialty expertise.
3. Current WCC litigation is heavily concentrated around dispositive motions. Of the submitted matters identified in the report, Rutledge, Guitron, and Wheeler all involve summary-judgment motions, with competing motions pending in both Rutledge and Wheeler. That is noteworthy for practitioners because the next group of WCC decisions may provide substantive guidance without trial, particularly from cases presenting competing motions where the parties contend the controlling issues can be decided as a matter of law.
4. The settlement data show an enormous valuation spread—and the distinction between accepted and disputed claims matters. Reported settlements range from $700 to $250,000. The largest reported WCC stipulation is the $250,000 full-and-final settlement in Edwards, involving the hands and left arm. By contrast, disputed initial-compensability settlements include $5,000 in Bechtold, $30,000 in Orr, $8,000 in Shakespeare, $14,600 in Hoppe, and $45,000 in Powers Healy. The limited sample suggests that liability risk remains a major valuation discount compared with accepted claims involving meaningful future exposure.
5. “Best interests” settlements also show that body part alone is a poor predictor of settlement value. The ESD data include best-interests settlements of $175,000 for a foot, $165,000 for an ankle, $85,000 for a low back, but only $700 for a skull claim. For practitioners, this is a useful reminder that settlement value cannot reliably be inferred from diagnosis/body part. Benefit exposure, disability, medical exposure, compensability strength, claimant circumstances, and settlement structure appear far more important.

Overall takeaway: The most consequential development in this edition is Jordan. It gives insurers meaningful latitude to obtain subsequent IMEs, but it also gives claimant counsel a framework for challenging them: focus not on a generic “good cause” objection, but on whether the proposed examination is actually relevant and appropriate, particularly where there has been no meaningful development in the medical evidence or need for different expertise.