Montana workers’ compensation court sides with injured worker over unfair medical exam demand

A recent workers’ compensation case made headlines in Montana when the Murphy Law Firm helped its client receive benefits to which he was entitled. The case of Neisinger v. New Hampshire Insurance Co. (2024-340, 3/25/25) underscored the importance of fairness and reasonableness in how insurers handle independent medical examinations under the Montana workers’ compensation laws. 

Your workers’ compensation case might not be factually similar to Mr. Neisinger’s, but this is a good example of why and how a Montana workers’ compensation lawyer can help you when an insurance company isn’t acting in your best interests. 

Remember, you’re not the insurer’s client. Even your employer isn’t the insurer’s “client.” Rather, the insurance company has one objective: To settle a claim for the lowest possible payout and earn a profit. For an insurance company to be profitable, it must pay out less in settlements and benefits than it earns in premium payments. The insurance company is going to reach this profit in two ways. First, it will raise your employer’s premiums when there are claims. Second, it’s going to provide you with the least amount of benefits that you’ll accept to “go away.” 

Your lawyer, on the other hand, does have your best interests in mind and will work to ensure you receive the workers’ compensation benefits to which you’re entitled. 

Let’s take a look at the Neisinger case and its progression through the Montana court system.

Summary of Neisinger v. New Hampshire Insurance Co.

Michael Neisinger suffered a physical injury at his workplace in 2015. The injury resulted in several mental health conditions; his employer’s insurer, New Hampshire Insurance Co. (NHIC), accepted liability and paid benefits.

In late 2019, Neisinger submitted to an independent medical evaluation (IME). At that time, the physician diagnosed him with work-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, anxiety and panic attacks. He indicated that the patient was not at maximum medical improvement (MMI) at that time.

Mr. Neisinger’s physician recommended psychotherapy, medication, and ketamine treatment. Over the next couple of years, several physicians disputed whether ongoing ketamine therapy was the best course of action for the patient. In late 2023, the insurance company notified Mr. Neisinger that he’d be required to see a different provider for appointments on two dates in Missoula, which was located in Missoula—which is more than 160 miles from his residence in Great Falls. The insurance company included travel accommodations, but the patient responded that it was too far and he would prefer to see providers with whom he’s familiar and who are closer to his location.

NHIC requested approval from the Montana Department of Labor & Industry (DLI), which oversees the state’s workers’ compensation system, to suspend the patient’s temporary total disability payments because the insurer said he was unreasonable in failing to attend the two scheduled appointments in Missoula. 

Neisinger argued that the location was unreasonably far and the insurer failed to offer a suitable alternative closer to his home. 

DLI approved the insurer’s request to suspend the claimant’s benefits. There were two resulting questions:

1. Was it an error of law for the DLI to approve NHIC’s request to suspend Mr. Neisinger’s TTD benefits?
2. Did the decision violate constitutional law, statute, involve unlawful procedure, or was it legally erroneous in any other way?

The court ultimately reversed the decision and found that the insurer did not make a good-faith effort to arrange the IME at a location that would be convenient and feasible for Mr. Neisinger to attend, which is required by Montana workers’ compensation law. 

In other words, the DLI’s finding that Mr. Neisinger was unreasonable in failing to attend the far-away IME appointments was affected by an error of law. Therefore, the DLI’s approval of NHIC’s request to suspend benefits was also an error of law. 

The court determined that the insurance company and DLI’s suspension of his TTD benefits was inappropriate and ordered retroactive payment. It reinforced the principle that insurers must act reasonably when scheduling IMEs, especially with regard to injured workers’ location and convenience.

Why does this case matter?

The overall legal significance of Neisinger v. New Hampshire Insurance Co. lies in how it reinforces injured workers’ rights and limits insurers’ authority in scheduling medical evaluations under Montana workers’ compensation law. 

Here’s why the case matters:

• An insurer must act in good faith. The ruling confirms that an insurer cannot unreasonably burden a claimant by scheduling an IME far from the claimant’s home without making a real effort to find a closer alternative.
  
  It reinforces that “reasonable location” is not just a suggestion—it’s a requirement.
• Claimants are protected from arbitrary benefit suspension. The case establishes that refusing to attend an unreasonably located IME does not justify suspending benefits. A claimant should not fear losing benefits for asserting their right to fair treatment.
• Clarification of administrative expectations. The decision guides both Montana insurers and adjusters about what constitutes a proper process for scheduling IMEs. It could reduce future disputes by setting a precedent for reasonableness and logistical fairness.

This is a win for procedural fairness in the Montana workers’ compensation system. It will help future claimants to avoid punishment for insurers’ administrative decisions. It might influence how similar disputes are handled in jurisdictions outside Montana, as well.

This case, which I handled, along with Thomas M. Murphy at the Murphy Law Firm, is a prime example of how your Montana workers’ compensation attorney fights for your rights. Our clients are always our top priority, and we aim to right the wrongs in the workers’ compensation system when they’re treated unfairly.