Montana Workers’ Compensation Court

Crisler v. Zurich American Insurance Company, 2026 MTWCC 6

Case No.: WCC No. PI-2025-0000974-WCI
Decision Date: September 1, 2026

Attorneys:       Bernard J. “Ben” Everett for Crisler; Steven W. Jennings for Zurich American Ins. Company

Factual and Procedural Summary

Robert Crisler sustained a compensable right-shoulder injury on October 18, 2023, while working as a journeyman ironworker. Zurich accepted liability. Crisler also had significant pre-existing conditions, including a prior L5-S1 fusion, spondyloarthropathy, psoriatic arthritis, prostate cancer, and ankylosing spondylosis, none of which were aggravated by the 2023 injury. After Crisler reached MMI, Zurich’s IME physician, Dr. John Schumpert, disapproved his return to his very-heavy time-of-injury job but approved three light/sedentary positions. Those approvals, however, considered only the compensable shoulder condition and did not account for Crisler’s pre-existing conditions. Zurich consequently converted his TTD benefits to PPD benefits effective June 13, 2025.

Crisler argued that the conversion was improper because § 39-71-609(2)(c), MCA, requires a physician to determine that the worker can perform a job for which he is suited by, among other factors, his “physical condition.” Zurich argued that it was not responsible for wage loss attributable to unaggravated pre-existing conditions.

The Court agreed with Crisler on the statutory issue. It held that “physical condition” means the claimant’s total physical condition, including both claim-related and non-claim-related conditions. Accordingly, an insurer cannot satisfy § 39-71-609(2)(c) by obtaining approval of a job analysis based solely upon restrictions attributable to the compensable injury.

Zurich nevertheless partially cured the deficiency when Dr. Schumpert subsequently reviewed Crisler’s pre-existing medical conditions and, on May 8, 2026, re-approved the alternative jobs after expressly considering those conditions. The Court therefore held that Zurich lacked a properly approved job analysis from June 13, 2025 through May 8, 2026, but had one thereafter.

The Court declined to rule on Zurich’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted Crisler’s counter-motion in part, awarding him the difference between his TTD and PPD rates from June 13, 2025 through May 8, 2026. It denied summary judgment on Crisler’s claim for PTD benefits after May 8, 2026, leaving that issue for trial.

Key Takeaway

Before reducing or converting TTD benefits under § 39-71-609(2)(c), MCA, the insurer must have a physician-approved job analysis that considers the worker’s entire “physical condition”—including unaggravated, pre-existing medical conditions—in combination with the compensable injury. Approval based solely on limitations arising from the industrial injury is insufficient. Failure to satisfy this requirement extends TTD entitlement until a compliant job approval is obtained, even if the claimant might otherwise be capable of employment.

SUBMITTED MATTERS

     Motions & Miscellaneous Matters

     Upcoming Trials, Hearings & Conferences

Montana Workers’ Compensation Stipulations Summary (week ending September 3, 2026)

PLAN 1

PLAN 2

 PLAN 3

ESD Settlements Approved through August 28, 2026

PLAN 1

PLAN 2

PLAN 3

Key Insights for Montana Work Comp Professionals

1. Plan 3 settlements are overwhelmingly with unrepresented claimants. The most striking data point is the concentration of unrepresented workers in Plan 3—Montana State Fund. Of the 12 Plan 3 ESD settlements listed, 11 involved claimants with no attorney, or approximately 92%. By comparison, Plan 1 shows only 3 of 6 settlements (50%) as unrepresented, while Plan 2 shows 1 of 2 (50%). This disparity may warrant closer attention from practitioners and policymakers regarding how frequently State Fund resolves claims directly with injured workers without counsel.
2. Most unrepresented Plan 3 settlements are “Best Interests” settlements. Eight of the 11 unrepresented Plan 3 settlements are identified as “Best Interests” settlements. Several are for very small amounts—$200, $206.66, $900, $2,350, $2,400, and $2,770. For practitioners, the frequency and modest size of these settlements raise an important practical question about what benefits or rights are being resolved and the degree to which an unrepresented claimant understands the consequences.
3. Representation appears associated with materially larger settlements, although the sample is too small to establish causation. The represented settlements reported in the document include several substantial resolutions—$150,000, $75,000, $50,000, $155,000 and $40,000 under Plan 1, as well as a $200,000 Plan 3 settlement. In contrast, many unrepresented ESD settlements are below $10,000. The dataset does not establish that representation causes higher settlements—the represented cases may simply involve more serious or valuable claims—but the relationship is significant enough to merit tracking over time.
4. The Crisler decision creates an important procedural requirement before terminating TTD. In Crisler v. Zurich, the Workers’ Compensation Court held that a physician approving an alternative job under § 39-71-609(2)(c), MCA, must consider the claimant’s entire physical condition, including non-work-related and unaggravated pre-existing conditions—not merely restrictions attributable to the accepted industrial injury. The practical consequence is substantial: Zurich owed the difference between TTD and PPD until it obtained a compliant job approval. This should affect how insurers, vocational consultants, and claimant attorneys review job analyses before a TTD conversion.
5. The current WCC docket suggests several issues worth watching for new precedent. Pending matters include competing summary-judgment motions in Wheeler v. Montana State Fund, an insurer’s motion to compel attendance at an IME in Jordan v. XL Specialty, and a motion to bifurcate in Krueger v. Clear Spring. Wheeler is scheduled for trial November 6, while Krueger has multiple physician perpetuation depositions and a November trial setting. These cases may produce useful guidance on recurring litigation issues involving IMEs, dispositive motions, and claim procedure.