Montana Workers’ Compensation Court
Case Citation: DesRosier v. Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority, 2026 MTWCC 4
WCC Case No.: SI-2026-0000007-WCD
Date of Decision: June 3, 2026
Parties
- Petitioner: James J. DesRosier
- Respondent/Insurer: Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority (MMIA)
Attorneys
- For Petitioner: James J. DesRosier (appearing pro se)
- For Respondent: Morgan M. Weber
Factual Background
Mr. DesRosier worked as a water treatment plant operator for the City of Chinook beginning in 2018. In September 2020, he was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) after an elevated white blood cell count was discovered during a routine employment screening. In August 2023, he filed an occupational disease claim alleging that workplace chemical exposure caused his leukemia. MMIA denied the claim, relying on medical evidence that CLL has no known occupational or chemical cause and that the available evidence did not support a causal relationship between his employment and his disease.
After mediation, Mr. DesRosier filed a Petition for Hearing on February 3, 2026, seeking acceptance of his occupational disease claim.
Decision
The Workers’ Compensation Court granted MMIA’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge Tee Bruner held that MMIA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on two independent grounds:
- Statute of Limitations: The Petition for Hearing was filed beyond the two-year limitations period established by § 39-71-2905(2), MCA. Although mediation tolled the statute, the filing deadline expired on December 1, 2025, and the Petition was not filed until February 3, 2026. The Court rejected Mr. DesRosier’s arguments for equitable tolling and equitable estoppel.
- Lack of Medical Causation Evidence: MMIA presented expert medical testimony that the cause of CLL is unknown and that Mr. DesRosier’s workplace exposures could not be reliably linked to his disease. Mr. DesRosier’s expert, Dr. Thomas, acknowledged possible exposure to a probable carcinogen but could not opine that workplace exposure was the major contributing cause of the leukemia. As a result, Mr. DesRosier failed to produce objective medical evidence sufficient to establish causation under § 39-71-407, MCA.
Although the Court found a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the occupational disease claim itself had been timely presented after discovery of the potential work-related nature of the disease, that issue did not prevent summary judgment because the statute of limitations and causation deficiencies independently disposed of the case.
Key Takeaway
This decision reinforces two important principles in Montana occupational disease litigation:
- A claimant must strictly comply with the two-year filing deadline under § 39-71-2905(2), MCA, and equitable tolling or estoppel will be applied only in exceptional circumstances supported by evidence.
- To survive summary judgment, a claimant must present competent medical evidence that the employment exposure was the major contributing cause of the occupational disease. Evidence that merely suggests a possible or plausible connection is insufficient.
Practical Significance for Montana Practitioners: Even where there is a factual dispute regarding when a claimant discovered the occupational nature of a disease, the claim will fail if medical experts cannot provide an opinion establishing occupational exposure as the major contributing cause on a medically probable basis.
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 |
| 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 |
| In the Matter of Jackson | Appointment of Benefits Administrator | 5/27/26 |
Upcoming Trials, Hearings & Conferences
| Issue | Matter | Date | Time | Place |
| Status Conference | Gonzalez v. Alaska National Ins. Co. | 6/10/26 | 10:30 a.m. | Zoom |
Montana Workers’ Compensation Stipulations Summary (through June 4, 2026)
PLAN 1
| Case Name | DOI | Body Part(s) | Settlement Type | Settlement Amount | Petitioner Attorney | Respondent Attorney |
| Christopher Nava v. Costco Wholesale Corp. | 8/18/21 | Lumbar spine | Full and Final – Disputed Initial Compensability | $97,400.00 | Kemmick, Haley
Plath Kemmick Law, LLC |
Harrington, Thomas
Laird Cowley, PLLC |
PLAN 2
| Case Name | DOI | Body Part(s) | Settlement Type | Settlement Amount | Petitioner Attorney | Respondent Attorney |
| Jason Foss v. Security Nat’l Ins. Co. | 4/12/24 | Right upper extremity | Full and Final – Disputed Initial Compensability | $18,291.00 | Mackay, Thomas
Mackay Law Firm PLLC |
Harrington, Thomas
Laird Cowley, PLLC |
| Cara Jones v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. | 4/4/25 | Foot | Full and Final – Medicals Closed | $50,000.00 | Plath, Russell
Plath Kemmick Law, LLC |
Maynard, Joe
Crowley Fleck PLLP |
PLAN 3
| Case Name | DOI | Body Part(s) | Settlement Type | Settlement Amount | Petitioner Attorney | Respondent Attorney |
| Christi Ruby v. Montana State Fund | 1/10/22; 7/9/25 | Neck; abdominal injury | Full and Final – Medicals Closed | $19,500.00 | Blackaby, Dean
Montana Work Comp Solutions |
Meyer, Mark
Montana State Fund |
ESD Settlements Approved through June 1, 2026
PLAN 2
| Claimant Name | DOI | Body Part | Settlement Type | Settlement Amount | Attorney Name |
| McIlvain, Hayden | 12/10/24 | Low back | Petition for Settlement – Medicals Closed | $25,000.00 | Murphy, Tommy |
| Nelson, Joshua | 5/28/25 | Knee | Petition for Settlement – Medicals Closed | $43,500.00 | Olson, Wayne |
| Thorn, Sarah | 12/8/23 | Shoulder(s) | Best Interests | $10,000.00 | Carey, Steve |
PLAN 3
| Claimant Name | DOI | Body Part | Settlement Type | Settlement Amount | Attorney Name |
| Anderson, Joshua | 4/9/25 | Knee | Petition for Settlement – Medicals Closed | $34,000.00 | Murphy, Tommy |
| Banderas-Nunez, Guadalupe | 3/27/25 | Hand | Best Interests | $50,000.00 | Kemmick, Hayley |
| Foley, Daniel | 10/19/25 | Internal Organs | Disputed Initial Compensability | $1,200.00 | None |
| Plantiko, Brent | 2/26/25 | Upper back | Best Interests | $2,100.00 | None |
| Riska, Angelita | 7/2/22 | Multiple lower extremities | Other | $5,000.00 | Bliven, Michael |
| Rodriquez, Alfredo | 5/12/25 | Thumb | Best Interests | $3,860.00 | None |
| Sharp, Josh | 2/28/26 | Upper back | Disputed Initial Compensability | $4,000.00 | None |
| Silvan, Jefferey | 10/3/25 | Facial bones | Best Interests | $6,500.00 | None |
| Stoican, Justin | 3/27/26 | Ankle | Disputed Initial Compensability | $700.00 | None |
| Suta, Michael | 4/22/25 | Finger(s) | Best Interests | $450.00 | None |
| Whitver, Brandon | 2/18/25 | Hand | Best Interests | $6,500.00 | None |
| Wilson, Dion | 3/17/22 | Upper back | Permanent Total – Medicals Reserved | $65,357.96 | Tempel-St. John, Stacy |
Key Insights for Montana Work Comp Professionals
- The WCC Continues to Strictly Enforce the Two-Year Petition Deadline
The most important legal development is the Court’s decision in DesRosier v. Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority. The Court granted summary judgment based on the claimant’s failure to file a Petition for Hearing within the two-year limitations period under § 39-71-2905(2), MCA, despite arguments for equitable tolling and equitable estoppel. This decision reinforces that procedural deadlines remain a significant defense in both injury and occupational disease litigation.
- Occupational Disease Claims Face a High Medical-Causation Burden
The Court reaffirmed that merely demonstrating a possible workplace exposure is insufficient. The claimant’s expert could not testify that workplace exposure was the “major contributing cause” of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The case underscores that occupational disease claims remain highly vulnerable to summary judgment when medical experts cannot express causation opinions on a medically probable basis. This will be particularly relevant in toxic exposure, cancer, and environmental exposure cases.
- Settlement Values Remain Highly Dependent on Claim Status and Medical Closure
The settlement data shows a substantial range in values:
- Disputed compensability settlements as low as $700 to $4,000.
- Medical-closure settlements in the $25,000-$50,000 range.
- A permanent total disability settlement with medicals reserved exceeding $65,000.
This suggests that acceptance status, future medical exposure, and disability classification continue to be the primary drivers of settlement value rather than body part alone.
- “Best Interests” Settlements Continue to Dominate ESD Approvals
A large percentage of Employment Standards Division settlements approved during the reporting period were structured as “Best Interests” settlements rather than traditional disputed-liability resolutions. This trend suggests continued reliance on Best Interests settlements as a practical mechanism for resolving claims involving relatively modest future exposure, claim-management concerns, or claimants without counsel.
- Summary Judgment Practice Remains Active at the WCC
The submitted matters section reflects numerous pending summary judgment motions, including matters involving insurers, the Uninsured Employers’ Fund, and occupational disease issues. This indicates that dispositive-motion practice remains a central feature of Montana workers’ compensation litigation and that parties are increasingly using summary judgment to resolve statute-of-limitations, employment status, compensability, and causation disputes before trial.
Overall takeaway: The June 2026 update highlights three recurring themes in Montana workers’ compensation practice: (1) strict procedural compliance, (2) rigorous medical-causation requirements in occupational disease claims, and (3) continued reliance on settlement and summary judgment as primary claim-resolution tools
