Montana Workers’ Compensation Court

Mullenbach v. Montana State Fund

Citation: 2026 MTWCC 5

Case No.: WCC No. MSF-2026-0000031-WCI

Court: Montana Workers’ Compensation Court

Decision Date: July 3, 2026

Attorneys:

• For Petitioner: Lucas A. Wallace
• For Respondent: Haocheng Wang

Factual and Procedural Summary

Mullenbach suffered an industrial injury on December 2, 2024, while employed by Fusion Technologies in Lehi, Utah. Montana State Fund accepted liability. An IME performed by Dr. John C. Schumpert related Mullenbach’s L3-4 disc bulge and associated spinal injuries to the industrial accident. Mullenbach reached MMI on December 29, 2025.

The parties agreed that Mullenbach qualified as a “disabled worker” and was generally eligible for rehabilitation benefits under § 39-71-1006, MCA. Mullenbach sought retraining through the Aviation Maintenance Technology Program at Helena College. Because the program begins only once per year and Fall 2026 tuition was due August 14, 2026, he requested an emergency hearing under WCC Rule 311. He argued that delaying the matter could prevent him from beginning the program within the statutory 78-week period following MMI.

The Court found that the approaching tuition deadline was sufficient to warrant consideration of an emergency hearing under the “other facts establishing an emergency” provision of WCC Rule 311(1)(c). However, the Court ultimately denied the request because Mullenbach had not developed sufficient evidence showing that he could prevail on the underlying rehabilitation dispute. The proposed plan had not been approved by the certified rehabilitation counselor, and Dr. Schumpert opined that Mullenbach was physically incapable of performing the duties of the proposed aviation-maintenance occupation. Critically, Mullenbach offered no contrary medical opinion, evidence challenging the CRC’s determination, or vocational evidence establishing that the occupation’s physical demands were compatible with his restrictions.

The Court therefore denied the emergency hearing. Importantly, however, the parties stipulated—and the Court ordered—that the 78-week statutory period for commencing a rehabilitation program would be tolled during the pendency of the litigation, eliminating the immediate risk that Mullenbach would lose rehabilitation eligibility solely because the litigation remained unresolved.

Key Takeaway

Mullenbach establishes that a genuine time-sensitive rehabilitation deadline may constitute sufficient circumstances for the Workers’ Compensation Court to consider an emergency hearing under WCC Rule 311, but urgency alone is not enough. A claimant seeking expedited adjudication must present a sufficiently developed factual and evidentiary basis demonstrating that the requested relief is potentially viable. Where the proposed rehabilitation plan is contradicted by the existing medical and vocational evidence, the claimant should be prepared with contrary medical evidence, testimony challenging the CRC’s conclusions, and/or vocational evidence demonstrating that the proposed occupation falls within the claimant’s physical restrictions.

A secondary practical takeaway is that tolling can provide an alternative to emergency adjudication where litigation itself threatens expiration of the 78-week rehabilitation deadline under § 39-71-1006(6), MCA.

SUBMITTED MATTERS

  Motions & Miscellaneous Matters

  Upcoming Trials, Hearings & Conferences

Montana Workers’ Compensation Stipulations Summary (through August 6, 2026)

PLAN 1

PLAN 2

PLAN 3

ESD Settlements Approved through July 31, 2026

PLAN 1

PLAN 2

PLAN 3

Key Insights for Montana Work Comp Professionals

1. Mullenbach provides an important roadmap for emergency disputes. In Mullenbach v. Montana State Fund, 2026 MTWCC 5, the Court recognized that a looming rehabilitation-program deadline can justify consideration of an emergency hearing, but urgency alone is insufficient. Claimants need developed medical and vocational evidence demonstrating that the proposed rehabilitation plan is actually viable. The decision also highlights tolling of the 78-week rehabilitation period as a practical alternative when litigation threatens the statutory deadline.
2. Currently, the WCC docket is heavily driven by dispositive motions. Of the 12 submitted matters identified in the report, nine involve motions or cross-motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment. This suggests that significant portions of current WCC litigation are being framed for resolution as legal issues rather than being left entirely for trial.
3. WCC settlements show substantial value when medical benefits are closed. The seven reported WCC full-and-final settlements closing medical benefits range from $15,000 to $250,000, totaling approximately $600,000. The largest is the $250,000 Gregory v. Protective Insurance settlement involving mid-back and head injuries, while the multi-site lower-extremity claim in Schollenbeger resolved for $105,000.
4. ESD settlement values demonstrate an exceptionally wide range. The reported ESD settlements range from only $815 to $180,000. Several “Best Interests” settlements reach substantial values—$180,000, $155,000, $80,000, and $75,000—while other claims involving similar settlement classifications resolve for only a few thousand dollars. The data reinforces that body part or settlement classification alone is a poor predictor of claim value; disability exposure, medical circumstances, disputed issues, and individual claim facts likely drive the differences.
5. Disputed initial compensability claims frequently resolve for relatively modest amounts—but there are notable exceptions. Most reported disputed-compensability settlements are $5,000 or less, including awards of $815, $1,000, $1,800, $2,050, $3,000, and $5,000. Yet the same category includes settlements of $22,500 and $40,000. For practitioners, this suggests that compensability disputes often produce nuisance or litigation-risk settlements, but stronger disputed claims can still command materially higher values when attorneys are involved.