Generally revise worker's compensation laws
The revisions outlined in HB 678 are expected to streamline the claims process for medical services and reduce the occurrence of what the bill refers to as predatory practices in bill reviews. Importantly, the bill addresses previous court decisions that had shaped the current landscape of workers' compensation, aiming to clarify legislative intent. However, there is contention regarding how these changes will affect workers, particularly those who may already struggle with proving their claims. The bill permits claims examiners to authorize payments for all related vendor charges, which can further change the dynamic between insurers and claimants.
House Bill 678 aims to revise various aspects of workers' compensation laws in Montana, focusing on improving the efficiency of claims processing and reimbursement for medical services related to injuries. The bill introduces new evidentiary standards which require claimants to prove their cases on a 'more probable than not' basis. Additionally, it removes the deference typically given to the opinions of treating physicians, thereby placing more weight on the testimonies of various medical professionals based on their qualifications and expertise. This is anticipated to create challenges in the claims process, as claimants may find it harder to substantiate their claims without the backing of their treating physicians.
There are various points of contention surrounding HB 678, particularly regarding the elimination of certain legal protections for injured workers. Critics argue that the removal of protections against 'obstructionist legal tactics' could lead to insurers becoming more aggressive in denying claims. Furthermore, concerns exist over the implications of the new standards for medical examinations and compliance with treatments, as failures to cooperate could result in the termination of benefits. Overall, the bill's impact on the balance of power between insurers and injured workers is under scrutiny, with opponents fearing it might disproportionately benefit insurance companies at the expense of workers' rights.