Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 39. LABOR · CHAPTER 71. WORKERS' COMPENSATION · Part 7. Compensation and Benefits Generally
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-711 (2026)

Impairment Evaluation -- Ratings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 39
  3. CHAPTER 71
  4. Part 7
  5. 39-71-711 Impairment evaluation -- ratings

TITLE 39. LABOR

CHAPTER 71. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Part 7. Compensation and Benefits Generally

Impairment Evaluation -- Ratings

39-71-711. Impairment evaluation -- ratings. (1) An impairment rating:

(a) is a purely medical determination and must be determined by an impairment evaluator after a claimant has reached maximum healing;

(b) must be based on the sixth edition of the American medical association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment;

(c) must be expressed as a percentage of the whole person; and

(d) must be established by objective medical findings and may not be based exclusively on complaints of pain.

(2) A claimant or insurer, or both, may obtain an impairment rating from an evaluator if the injury falls within the scope of the evaluator's practice and if the evaluator is one of the following:

(a) a physician or an osteopath licensed under Title 37, chapter 3, with admitting privileges to practice in one or more hospitals, if any, in the area where the physician or osteopath is located;

(b) a chiropractor licensed under Title 37, chapter 12;

(c) a physician assistant licensed under Title 37, chapter 20;

(d) a dentist licensed under Title 37, chapter 4;

(e) an advanced practice registered nurse licensed under Title 37, chapter 8; or

(f) for a claimant residing out of state or upon approval of the insurer, an evaluator referred to in subsections (2)(a) through (2)(e) who is licensed or certified in another state.

(3) If the claimant and insurer cannot agree upon the rating, the mediation procedure in Title 39, chapter 71, part 24, must be followed.

(4) Disputes over impairment ratings are subject to the provisions of 39-71-605.

History: En. Sec. 24, Ch. 464, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 161, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 64, Ch. 613, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 558, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 15, Ch. 243, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 141, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 17, Ch. 112, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 11, Ch. 167, L. 2011; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 133, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1990–2020 · leading case: S.L.H. v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 2000 MT 362, 15 P.3d 948.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
S.L.H. v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 2000 MT 362, 15 P.3d 948. · cites it 27× “The court read § 39-71-711, MCA, which provides the procedure for rating impairments, as requiring that an impairment rating be expressed by the evaluator as a percentage.”
Rausch v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 2002 MT 203, 54 P.3d 25. · cites it 6× “§ 39-71-711, MCA (1991 & 1997). The impairment rating is the physical component on which the disability is based.”
Grenz v. Prezeau, 798 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 4× “Since Grenz’s injury occurred in 1984, § 39-71-711, MCA, does not apply. *426 Grenz’s third allegation is that Prezeau failed to effectuate a prompt and equitable settlement of his claim.”
S. Hensley v. State Fund, No. DA 19-0523 (Mont. Dec. 16, 2020). · cites it 26× “” 31 impairment awards, the Legislature enacted § 39-71-711, MCA (1987), which provided in part: (1) An impairment rating: (a) is a purely medical determination and must be determined by an impairment evaluator after a claimant has reached maximum healing; (b) must be based on…”
Stewart v. Liberty Nw. Ins., 2013 MT 107, 299 P.3d 820. · cites it 2× “Stewart’s original claim was based on § 39-71-711, MCA, regarding impairment ratings, while Stewart’s current claim is based on § 39-71-704, MCA, regarding the payment of medical benefits, specifically the pain patches.”
Woods v. State Fund, No. 94-473 (Mont. Aug. 25, 1995). · cites it 2× “Luckett's 1991 impairment rating because it was not based on the most recent Guide to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, as required by § 39-71-711(b), MCA. We do not understand the relevance of Wood's argument regarding Dr.”
Litchfield's Case, 15 N.E.3d 251 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “190 (a), (b) (2012) (“the compensation is $177,000 multiplied by the employee’s percentage of permanent impairment of the whole person,” which is determined by the procedure set out in the AMA Guides); Mont. Code Ann. §39-71-711 (l)(b), (c) (2013) (requiring that an impairment…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-711(1): 1 case
S. Hensley v. State Fund, No. DA 19-0523 (Mont. Dec. 16, 2020). “” 31 impairment awards, the Legislature enacted § 39-71-711, MCA (1987), which provided in part: (1) An impairment rating: (a) is a purely medical determination and must be determined by an impairment evaluator after a claimant has reached maximum healing; (b) must be based on…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-711(1)(a): 2 cases
Rausch v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 2002 MT 203, 54 P.3d 25. “§ 39-71-711, MCA (1991 & 1997). The impairment rating is the physical component on which the disability is based.”
S. Hensley v. State Fund, No. DA 19-0523 (Mont. Dec. 16, 2020). “” 31 impairment awards, the Legislature enacted § 39-71-711, MCA (1987), which provided in part: (1) An impairment rating: (a) is a purely medical determination and must be determined by an impairment evaluator after a claimant has reached maximum healing; (b) must be based on…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-711(1)(b): 1 case
S. Hensley v. State Fund, No. DA 19-0523 (Mont. Dec. 16, 2020). “” 31 impairment awards, the Legislature enacted § 39-71-711, MCA (1987), which provided in part: (1) An impairment rating: (a) is a purely medical determination and must be determined by an impairment evaluator after a claimant has reached maximum healing; (b) must be based on…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-711(1)(c): 1 case
S. Hensley v. State Fund, No. DA 19-0523 (Mont. Dec. 16, 2020). “” 31 impairment awards, the Legislature enacted § 39-71-711, MCA (1987), which provided in part: (1) An impairment rating: (a) is a purely medical determination and must be determined by an impairment evaluator after a claimant has reached maximum healing; (b) must be based on…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-711(3)(b)(i): 1 case
Grenz v. Prezeau, 798 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1990). “Since Grenz’s injury occurred in 1984, § 39-71-711, MCA, does not apply. *426 Grenz’s third allegation is that Prezeau failed to effectuate a prompt and equitable settlement of his claim.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-711(b): 1 case
Woods v. State Fund, No. 94-473 (Mont. Aug. 25, 1995). “Luckett's 1991 impairment rating because it was not based on the most recent Guide to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, as required by § 39-71-711(b), MCA. We do not understand the relevance of Wood's argument regarding Dr.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-711(l)(c): 1 case
S.L.H. v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 2000 MT 362, 15 P.3d 948. “The court read § 39-71-711, MCA, which provides the procedure for rating impairments, as requiring that an impairment rating be expressed by the evaluator as a percentage.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.