Montana Workers’ Compensation Court

Boyer v. Montana State Fund, 2026 MTWCC 10

Case Number:             MSF-2026-0000020-WCI

Decision Date:            October 13, 2026

Attorneys:

Alex K. Evans for Boyer;

Jeffrey Doud for Montana State Fund;

Facts and Decision

Brad Boyer challenged Montana State Fund’s termination of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. State Fund initially represented that Boyer had complied with his obligations and that his benefits were reinstated on August 29, 2025. However, its claims examiner subsequently testified that benefits had not been reinstated, contradicting State Fund’s earlier representations. Boyer relied upon those representations in seeking partial summary judgment.

State Fund moved to amend its pleading to correct the statements. Boyer opposed the amendment, arguing that the original statements constituted binding judicial admissions and that allowing the amendment would prejudice his case.

The Court granted State Fund’s motion to amend, finding it timely and concluding that Boyer had not demonstrated undue prejudice to his ability to try the case. Applying Montana’s liberal pleading amendment standards under Rule 15(a)(2), M.R.Civ.P., and Lindey’s, Inc. v. Professional Consultants, Inc., the Court emphasized that cases should be decided on their merits using accurate facts.

Importantly, the Court expressly preserved State Fund’s earlier statements as potential evidence and declined to decide whether they constituted binding judicial admissions or supported judicial or equitable estoppel.

Key Takeaway

An insurer may amend its pleadings to correct material factual misrepresentations when the amendment is timely and does not unduly prejudice the opposing party. However, amendment does not erase prior inconsistent statements or prevent their use as evidence. Such statements may remain relevant to the insurer’s credibility, the reasonableness of its conduct, and potential estoppel arguments, even when the original pleading has been amended.

Practical significance: The decision distinguishes procedural permission to amend a pleading from the evidentiary consequences of an insurer’s prior representations, preserving an injured worker’s ability to challenge inconsistent insurer positions at summary judgment or trial.

SUBMITTED MATTERS

      Motions & Miscellaneous Matters

     Upcoming Trials, Hearings & Conferences

Montana Workers’ Compensation Stipulations Summary (week ending October 15, 2026)

PLAN 1         

PLAN 2

PLAN 3

ESD Settlements Approved through October 9, 2026

PLAN 1

PLAN 3

Key Insights for Montana Work Comp Professionals

1. Insurers May Amend Pleadings, but Prior Inconsistent Statements Remain Relevant. In Boyer v. Montana State Fund, 2026 MTWCC 10, the Court permitted State Fund to correct inaccurate factual representations in its pleadings. However, the Court preserved the potential evidentiary use of the original statements and left judicial admission and estoppel arguments unresolved. The decision underscores the importance of documenting and scrutinizing inconsistent insurer positions.
2. Settlement Values Demonstrate Significant Variability Across Claims. Six monetary Workers’ Compensation Court stipulations totaled $427,500, with individual settlements ranging from $45,000 to $165,000. The average settlement was $71,250. These differences reinforce the importance of evaluating medical exposure, compensability disputes, and long-term benefit obligations individually rather than relying on generalized settlement averages.
3. Medicare Set-Asides Can Represent a Substantial Portion of Settlement Value. The $165,000 settlement in Brosseau v. MMIA included a $78,836 Medicare Set-Aside, representing approximately 47.8% of the total settlement. This illustrates how Medicare’s interests and future medical obligations can substantially affect the allocation of settlement proceeds and the amount available to resolve indemnity exposure.
4. Permanent Total Disability Remains a Significant Exposure for Insurers. In Eblen v. Montana State Fund, the parties stipulated to converting temporary total disability benefits to permanent total disability benefits. Although no monetary settlement was reported, the agreement illustrates the potentially substantial long-term indemnity exposure associated with claims involving permanent loss of earning capacity.
5. Pending Motions Highlight the Importance of Litigation Strategy and Evidence Preservation. Twelve motions or other matters were listed as submitted, including multiple summary judgment motions, a motion for reconsideration, a motion in limine, and a motion seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The pending matters emphasize that procedural strategy, preservation of evidence, and the development of a reliable factual record remain central to Montana workers’ compensation litigation.

Additional statistical observation: The four reported Employment Settlement Division approvals totaled $304,000, bringing the combined value of the ten reported monetary settlements to $731,500. The $275,000 McDaniel settlement alone represented approximately 37.6% of that combined amount, demonstrating how a small number of high-value claims can significantly influence reported settlement averages. The paucity of ESD approved settlements is most likely attributed to the timing of the Montana Governor’s Conference on Workers’ Compensation.