Senate bill would limit automatic deference to treating physicians and reimburse travel costs for independent medical exams

Senator Greg Hertz, sponsor of Senate Bill 345, told the House Business and Labor Committee the bill would require the workers' compensation court to evaluate medical opinions based on all relevant facts — providers' education, experience, specialization and credibility — rather than applying an automatic deference to treating physicians.

"The bill requires the court to actually perform a thoughtful analysis of qualifications, credibility of medical providers rather than applying a rule indiscriminately," Senator Greg Hertz said.

Nut graf: Proponents including self‑insured employers, the state fund and business groups urged the change as a modernization aligning Montana with other jurisdictions and to reduce overreliance on a single medical opinion. Opponents — trial lawyers, injured workers and labor groups — said the change would tip the balance toward insurers, reduce injured workers’ protections, limit discovery into IME physician relationships and make it easier to require injured workers to travel long distances for IMEs.

Supporters argued the bill is narrowly tailored: it would still allow courts to consider a treating provider’s time with and knowledge of a patient but would also weigh training, specialization and experience. The bill also narrows discovery about IME doctors — proponents said discovery should focus on relevant work and prior testimony rather than unrelated personal finances — and adds explicit reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred to attend an IME (travel, lodging, meals, childcare, pet care and lost wages in certain circumstances).

Opponents said Montana’s longstanding treating‑physician rule gives a tie‑breaking advantage to a provider who has ongoing clinical familiarity with an injured worker, and that the bill would remove an important claimant protection. Several injured workers testified about difficulty obtaining needed care, the burden of out‑of‑state IMEs and cases where IME reports conflicted with treating providers’ recommendations. Opponents also questioned limiting discovery about IME practice patterns and the potential for insurers to schedule IMEs far from the claimant’s home; they noted existing statutory safeguards and recent workers'‑comp court decisions that enforce a "as close as practicable" standard for IMEs.

Agency counsel from the Department of Labor and Industry attended as an informational witness. The sponsor closed by saying he would work with both proponents and opponents on technical changes if the bill moves forward. The committee did not record a final vote on the measure in the session covered by the transcript.