Committee hears bill to restore ‘full duty’ releases in workers’ compensation

Representative Anthony Nicastro, sponsor of House Bill 197, told the House Business and Labor Committee that the bill would “restore a long standing and accepted practice” in Montana workers’ compensation by making clear that a treating physician’s unrestricted release allows an injured worker to return to full duty and the insurer to end benefits without a separate job-analysis process.

The change is aimed at reversing the effect of a workers’ compensation court decision (referred to in testimony as Rainey) that, officials said, extended a job-analysis and administrative review process to cases in which physicians issued full-duty releases. Proponents including Montana State Fund, business groups and trade associations said the process now costs employers and delays return to work.

“An injured worker can return to work when their treating physician says that they can,” said Nick Mazanec of Montana State Fund. “Full duty means full duty.” He and other proponent witnesses described average administrative delays of three to four months when a job analysis is required and estimated direct paperwork costs and added benefit exposure to insurers.

Opponents — including the Montana AFL-CIO, labor unions and attorneys for injured workers — said the change would shift risk to injured employees who have not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) or who do not have a job to return to. Amanda Frickel of the Montana AFL-CIO pointed to the Rainey decision and said, “the changes provided in HB 197 would be disadvantageous to an injured worker.”

Several witnesses highlighted different scenarios that concern them. Stacy Temple St. John, who represents injured workers, said Rainey applied to claimants who did not have a time-of-injury job to return to and whose medical-record releases were later found to be mistaken; in that case the worker lost wage-loss benefits until the department or the court corrected the error.

Proponents said the job-analysis requirement imposed by the court’s decision has measurable cost impacts. Mazanec told the committee Montana State Fund’s book of claims shows about 266 claims per year affected; he estimated roughly $220,000 in yearly job-analysis paperwork costs for those claims and extrapolated systemwide administrative and temporary-total-disability exposure in the millions. He also cited a study commonly referenced in industry discussions (Zurich, 2015) on work-loss and return-to-work outcomes.

Committee members probed several points: whether the bill would cause claimants to shift to unemployment insurance if they lacked a job to return to; whether mistakes like the Rainey fact pattern would be addressed through existing interim-benefits processes; and whether the bill could reduce employer premiums by lowering claim costs. Mazanec and other proponents said the Department of Labor’s interim benefit authority and the claims-adjustment process addressed disputes, and they argued that the bill would cut unnecessary administrative cost and speed return-to-work.

No formal committee action was recorded on HB 197 during this hearing. Representative Nicastro reserved the right to close and the hearing record was left open for questions and further input.

Ending: The committee received competing testimony and detailed fiscal and legal questions. Proponents urged a “due pass” to restore the physician-centered full-duty practice; opponents urged caution, emphasizing claimants who have not reached MMI or who lack a job to return to. The bill remained under consideration at the end of the hearing.