Opinion ID: 885048
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: overview of the workers' compensation act and the occupational disease act

Text: ¶ 12 We begin our analysis with a brief historical overview of the relevant provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Disease Act. Historically, the workers' compensation system was an outgrowth of tort law. It was premised on a compromise whereby workers gave up their right to sue employers in tort for work-related injuries in exchange for a guaranteed compensation system. The injured worker gave up his right to receive full compensation for his injury in exchange for receiving a speedy and certain award; compensation did not depend upon the fault of the employer, nor was it denied based upon the fault of the employee. Based upon the legal environment existing at the time that workers' compensation laws were first enacted, this bargain was perceived as fair. See Haas, Theodore F., On Reintegrating Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability, 21 Ga.L.Rev. 843, 846-47, 862-868 (1987). ¶ 13 Because of its historical underpinnings, the workers' compensation system was designed to compensate only victims of industrial accidents, and not workers suffering from occupational diseases. As was explained in 3 Larson, Workers' Compensation Law, § 41.20 (1998): To the extent that compensation acts were thought of as substituting nonfault liability for the kind of injuries that were potential subjects of fault liability, there was thought to be no place for occupational diseases, which (in the sense of a disease due to the normal conditions of the industry as distinguished from the negligence of the employer) had consistently been held incapable of supporting a common-law action. ¶ 14 However, as the incidence of diseases such as silicosis and asbestosis increased, the law was expanded to provide benefits to workers suffering from such diseases. See Kutchins, Albert, The Most Exclusive Remedy Is No Remedy at All: Workers' Compensation Coverage for Occupational Diseases, 32 Lab.LJ. 212, 212 (1981). In 1959, the Montana Legislature created a statutory remedy for work-related diseases when it enacted the ODA, now codified at §§ 39-72-101 to 714, MCA. ¶ 15 Consistent with the historical circumstances that gave rise to the two Acts, coverage by each Act was thus dependent upon the worker's medical condition. What constituted an injury under the WCA was different than what constituted an occupational disease under the ODA. When the WCA was first enacted, injury was defined as follows: (k) Injury means and shall include death resulting from injury. .... (q) Injury or injured refers only to an injury resulting from some fortuitous event, as distinguished from the contraction of disease. 1915 Mont. Law Ch. 96, Section 6. ¶ 16 In 1961, two years after the ODA was passed, the WCA defined injury to mean: a tangible happening of a traumatic nature from an unexpected cause, resulting in either external or internal physical harm, and such physical condition as a result therefrom and excluding disease not traceable to injury. 1961 Mont. Law Ch. 162, Section 6. The legislature amended the definition a few more times prior to 1987, most notably in 1973, when it included within the definition of injury cardiovascular, pulmonary, or respiratory diseases contracted by firefighters during employment due to over-exertion in times of stress or danger or by cumulative exposure over four years to toxic gases. 1973 Mont. Law Ch. 488, Section 1. ¶ 17 Similarly, consistent with its historical purposes, when the ODA was enacted, it defined occupational disease as silicosis or poisoning by a variety of enumerated compounds. 1959 Mont. Laws Ch. 155, Section 4. In 1979, the legislature redefined it to mean all diseases arising out of or contracted from and in the course of employment. 1979 Mont. Law Ch. 397, Section 85(11). For purposes relevant to this appeal, however, neither the definition of injury nor the definition of occupational disease was substantially changed until 1987. ¶ 18 In 1987, the Montana Legislature overhauled the workers' compensation system. In so doing, it significantly redefined what it means to be injured under the WCA and what it means to be diseased under the ODA. Rather than focusing on the nature of the medical condition as it historically did, the legislature instead focused in part on the number of work shifts over which a worker incurred an affliction. ¶ 19 Specifically, the legislature amended the WCA to define injury as follows: (1) Injury or injured means: (a) internal or external physical harm to the body; (b) damage to prosthetic devices or appliances, except for damage to eyeglasses, contact lenses, dentures, or hearing aids; or (c) death. (2) An injury is caused by an accident. An accident is: (a) an unexpected traumatic incident or unusual strain; (b) identifiable by time and place of occurrence; (c) identifiable by a member or part of the body affected; and (d) caused by a specific event on a single day or during a single work shift. 1987 Mont. Law Ch. 464, Section 3, codified at § 39-71-119, MCA(1993)(emphasis added). ¶ 20 Similarly, the legislature amended the ODA to define occupational disease as follows: Occupational disease means harm, damage, or death as set forth in XX-XX-XXX(1) [defining injury or injured under the Workers' Compensation Act] arising out of or contracted in the course and scope of employment and caused by events occurring on more than a single day or work shift. The term does not include a physical or mental condition arising from emotional or mental stress or from a nonphysical stimulus or activity. 1987 Mont. Law Ch. 464, Section 64, codified at § 39-72-102(10), MCA(emphasis added). ¶ 21 Thus, according to the 1987 definitions, a worker who obtains an affliction such as a herniated disc on one work shift, is considered injured and is thus covered by the WCA. At the same time, another worker who obtains that exact same affliction, a herniated disc, over the course of two work shifts, is considered diseased and is covered by the ODA. Moreover, many conditions that constituted injuries prior to 1987 are now considered diseases under the new definitions. For example, a worker such as Henry has an occupational disease under the ODA if he obtains a herniated disc over two work shifts, but would have had an injury under the WCA prior to 1987. ¶ 22 When the legislature overhauled the system in 1987, it also declared it to be the public policy of the State of Montana to return both injured and diseased workers to work as soon as possible: Declaration of public policy. For the purposes of interpreting and applying Title 39, Chapters 71 and 72 [Workers' Compensation Act and Occupational Disease Act, respectively], the following is the public policy of this state : .... (2) A worker's removal from the work force due to a work-related injury or disease has a negative impact on the worker, the worker's family, the employer, and the general public. Therefore, it is an objective of the workers' compensation system to return a worker to work as soon as possible after the worker has suffered a work-related injury or disease. 1987 Mont. Law Ch. 464, Section 1, codified at § 39-71-105, MCA (emphasis added). ¶ 23 To implement the goal of early return to work, the legislature enacted statutes providing for rehabilitation services. A rehabilitation plan is defined as: a written individualized plan that assists a disabled worker in acquiring skills or aptitudes to return to work through job placement, on-the-job training, education, training, or specialized job modification and that reasonably reduces the worker's actual wage loss. Section 39-71-1011(4), MCA. Rehabilitation services is defined as: a program of evaluation, planning, and implementation of a rehabilitation plan to assist a disabled worker to return to work. Section 39-71-1011(6), MCA. Section 39-71-1006, MCA, sets forth the criteria for a worker's eligibility for rehabilitation benefits. ¶ 24 However, these vocational rehabilitation provisions are set forth in Chapter 71 (the WCA), rather than in Chapter 72 (the ODA). After analyzing this legislative scheme, this Court has held that rehabilitation benefits are not statutorily available to workers proceeding under the ODA. Loss v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (1997), 282 Mont. 80, 936 P.2d 313. This case now presents a constitutional challenge to that legislative scheme.