Barnhart v. Mont. State Fund
| Citation | 411 Mont. 138,522 P.3d 418 |
| Decision Date | 27 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | DA 22-0114 |
| Parties | Tamara BARNHART, Petitioner and Appellee, v. MONTANA STATE FUND, Respondent and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Nick Mazanec, Special Assistant Attorney General, Montana State Fund, Helena, Montana
For Appellee: Paul D. Odegaard, Lucas A. Wallace, Odegaard Kovacich Snipes, Helena, Montana
¶1 Montana State Fund (State Fund) appeals from the Workers’ Compensation Court's (WCC) Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Order). We reverse.
¶2 We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the Workers’ Compensation Court erred when it ruled that a permanently partially disabled worker's aggregate wages, calculated at the time of injury, are used to determine the worker's permanent partial disability benefit rate regardless of the worker's actual wage loss at maximum healing.
¶3 On September 6, 2017, Petitioner and Appellee Tamara Barnhart suffered a back injury in the course of her employment with Youth Dynamics, Inc. (YDI).1 At the time of her injury, Barnhart worked an average of 40.6 hours per week at YDI. She also worked an average of 15.2 hours per week at Dairy Queen. Barnhart's two jobs constitute "concurrent employment" within the meaning of § 39-71-123(4)(a), MCA.
¶4 Over the next year and a half, Barnhart was sometimes able to work and sometimes not. On April 9, 2019, her treating physician determined she was at maximum medical improvement (MMI)2 and assessed her with a Class 2, 10% whole person impairment rating. Barnhart's treating physician further opined that Barnhart could return to work at YDI but could not return to work at Dairy Queen because of her permanent impairment.
¶5 At the time of her injury, Barnhart earned $14.47 per hour at YDI, for an average weekly wage of $587.40. If considered alone, Barnhart's permanent partial disability (PPD) benefit rate for her work at YDI would be $384.00 per week. At the time of her injury, Barnhart earned $18.55 per hour at Dairy Queen, for an average weekly wage of $281.91. If considered alone, Barnhart's PPD benefit rate for her work at Dairy Queen would be $187.94 per week. The aggregate average weekly wage of Barnhart's concurrent employments was $869.31. Pursuant to § 39-71-703(6), MCA, this resulted in a PPD benefit rate of $384.00.3
¶6 On June 24, 2019, State Fund advised Barnhart that it would pay her impairment award at the PPD benefit rate of $384.00, which represented her aggregate YDI and Dairy Queen wages. State Fund advised Barnhart that it would pay her PPD indemnity benefits at the rate of $187.94 per week, which represented only her Dairy Queen wages.
¶7 Barnhart petitioned the WCC, asking the court to order State Fund to recalculate her PPD indemnity benefits at the rate of $384.00 per week. Barnhart argued that State Fund erroneously excluded her YDI wages from its PPD indemnity benefit rate calculation when determining her indemnity benefits.
¶8 The parties agreed to submit the case for decision on summary judgment. After briefing and oral argument, the WCC ruled in Barnhart's favor on the PPD indemnity benefit rate.4 State Fund appeals.
¶9 We review a court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Hensley v. Mont. State Fund , 2020 MT 317, ¶ 6, 402 Mont. 277, 477 P.3d 1065. In so doing, we use the same standard used by the trial court: whether no genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Satterlee v. Lumberman's Mut. Cas. Co. , 2009 MT 368, ¶ 9, 353 Mont. 265, 222 P.3d 566. We review the WCC's conclusions of law for correctness. Neisinger v. N.H. Ins. Co. , 2019 MT 275, ¶ 13, 398 Mont. 1, 452 P.3d 909. Interpretation and construction of a statute is a matter of law. Neisinger , ¶ 13.
Whether the Workers’ Compensation Court erred when it ruled that a permanently partially disabled worker's aggregate wages, calculated at the time of injury, are used to determine the worker's permanent partial disability benefit rate regardless of the worker's actual wage loss at maximum healing.
¶10 Montana's Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) recognizes four types of biweekly wage-loss benefits. Two of these—temporary partial disability and temporary total disability—are available prior to reaching MMI. Section 39-71-116(37), MCA (defining "temporary partial disability"); § 39-71-712, MCA (providing criteria for temporary partial disability benefits); § 39-71-116(39), MCA (defining "temporary total disability"); and § 39-71-701, MCA (providing criteria for temporary total disability benefits). Upon reaching MMI, a worker is no longer eligible for temporary disability benefits. At that point, if the worker's physical condition leaves her without a reasonable prospect of physically performing regular employment, she is entitled to permanent total disability benefits. Section 39-71-116(28), MCA (defining "permanent total disability"), and § 39-71-702, MCA (providing criteria for permanent total disability benefits). If, like Barnhart, she has a permanent impairment, she is able to return to work in some capacity but the permanent impairment impairs her ability to work, and she has an actual wage loss as a result of the injury, then she is entitled to PPD indemnity benefits. Section 39-71-116(27), MCA (defining "permanent partial disability"), and § 39-71-703, MCA (providing criteria for permanent partial disability benefits).
¶11 Both permanently totally disabled individuals and permanently partially disabled individuals may further be entitled to an impairment award. Rausch v. State Comp. Ins. Fund , 2002 MT 203, ¶¶ 19-20, 311 Mont. 210, 54 P.3d 25. In this case, State Fund correctly calculated Barnhart's impairment award based on the aggregate of her time-of-injury wages for Dairy Queen and YDI because § 39-71-703(2), MCA, provides that a worker who suffers a Class 2 or greater impairment is entitled to an impairment award regardless of wage loss. Barnhart does not dispute this calculation. Barnhart disputes State Fund's calculation of her PPD indemnity benefit rate, based only on her Dairy Queen wage, because Barnhart did not suffer an actual wage loss from her YDI job upon reaching MMI, as defined by § 39-71-116(1), MCA.5
¶12 The WCC ruled that State Fund incorrectly calculated Barnhart's PPD indemnity benefit rate because it failed to include her YDI wages. The WCC explained that the determination of an injured worker's PPD benefit rate uses a two-step process: first, the worker's time-of-injury wages are determined pursuant to § 39-71-123, MCA ; next, that determination is used to calculate the worker's PPD benefit rate pursuant to § 39-71-703(5), MCA. At the core of the present dispute, the WCC determined that the wage calculation under § 39-71-123, MCA, takes place at the time of injury and, "once calculated, the claimant's wages are fixed ... [and] are then used throughout her claim to calculate the rates for the benefits to which she is entitled[.]" The WCC supports its interpretation by reading both statutes together: Section 39-71-123(4)(c), MCA, provides that the compensation benefits for injured workers with concurrent employments "must be based on the aggregate of average actual wages of all employments ... from which the employee is disabled by the injury incurred," while § 39-71-703(6), MCA, provides, in relevant part that "[t]he weekly benefit rate for permanent partial disability is 66 2/3% of the wages received at the time of injury [.]" (Emphases added.) The WCC concluded Barnhart is therefore entitled to have both jobs included in her PPD indemnity benefit rate even though post-MMI she is only precluded from returning to Dairy Queen and suffered no actual wage loss at YDI.
¶13 Permanent disability benefits are calculated at MMI because an injured worker's entitlement to either PPD or permanent total disability indemnity benefits cannot be determined until the worker reaches MMI. Rausch , ¶ 23, n.1. The WCC determined that this post-MMI determination nonetheless employs the worker's time-of-injury wages in the same manner as those wages are used to calculate the impairment award. State Fund argues that Barnhart is entitled to PPD indemnity benefits only for employments from which she experienced an actual wage loss upon reaching permanent disability—i.e., MMI. State Fund asserts that while § 39-71-703(2), MCA, dictates that an impairment award is calculated without regard to wage loss, § 39-71-123(4)(c), MCA, dictates that the PPD indemnity benefit rate is derived from "the aggregate of average actual wages of all employments ... from which the employee is disabled by the injury incurred," and the WCC incorrectly concluded that an injured worker's "disability" is always established at the time of injury. (Emphasis added.)
¶14 State Fund asserts that the WCC imposed a "temporal framework" upon § 39-71-123(4)(c), MCA, that does not exist in the language of the statute, conflating the time-of-injury wage calculation for impairment awards with the "disability analysis" for calculation of the PPD indemnity benefit rate. State Fund contends that for purposes of determining Barnhart's entitlement to PPD indemnity benefits, her "disability" necessarily occurred at MMI, and since she was only determined to be disabled from the Dairy Queen job, her YDI wages were correctly excluded from the indemnity benefit calculation.
¶15 We have held that "[t]he plain language of the [WCA] clearly demonstrates that the term ‘disability’ is tied to a wage loss or impairment in the ability to earn wages through employment." Tinker v. Mont. State Fund , 2009 MT 218, ¶ 32, 351 Mont. 305, 211 P.3d 194 ; § 39-71-1011(3), MCA (defining "disabled worker" as "a worker who has a permanent impairment, established by objective...
To continue reading
Request your trial